Axiom Home Page Forums General Discussion Home Theater Dolby Pro Logic IIz Height Channels Which Speakers

I saw your post over there and posted my findings from my listening test. Not to argue with the man himself but IMO there was no contest that the QS8s sounded better in the height role than the M22s did. Howver, I agree completely with his statement about the wide channels.

You have a pair of surround back QS8s so you might want to do a demo for yourself. I wouldn’t belabor the point if I hadn’t heard such a stark advantage in using the QS8s over the M22s in the height role. IMHO, YMMV….and all that.

P.S. I also saw you made a new friend over there. Waiting to see if he takes a shot at me.

Quadpoles tend to confuse people who haven't heard them, since they seem to have characteristics of both bipoles and dipoles.

Remember that Axioms QS series don't have drivers firing out-of-phase, so they work better, in my opinion, to give widely-dispersed sound than traditional surround speakers in positions where out-of-phase speaker designs don't work very well.

Height channel speakers sound like that kind of application.

Anyone try using tadpoles as height channels?

Yep I mentioned over at AVS that the design of the QS8s might be why IMO they worked better than other di or even bi pole speakers might.

So the Q’s are really bi-pole? I suppose I was never curious enough to dig into that and why they were called quad-pole.

So why is it you found the Q’s worked better as heights and directional better as the widths Dean? Did you find more directionally focused sound from the width channels and more ambient, non-directional stuff from the heights?

I am limited with real estate, so I will be limited to either M2’s or QS4’s for the height speakers. There’s no way I can fit the QS8’s up there. I can use anything from the M22 size or smaller for the width speakers.

Ya, I made a “friend”. I just love the generosity and kindness of internet forums. He didn’t even get what I was asking.

Yes. The QS speakers are bi-bi-poles, with all drivers firing in-phase.

Yes that was exactly my experience:

http://www.axiomaudio.com/boards/ubbthre...true#Post279710

I should clarify that I preferred the Dolby PLIIz rather than the DSX height effects. In general their effects were similar though DSX height sounded stronger than PLIIz, Dolby had less issues as better described in this review.

http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/newproducts/3250/first-listen-audyssey-dsx.html



I’m coming to the conclusion that I prefer Dolby PLIIz to both Audyssey DSX height and wide. Both the DSX channels IMO draw to much attention to themselves which actually distracts from the on screen action. don’t’ get me wrong when they’re hitting the mark they both sound great but they do it at the expense of sounding overbearing and drawing your attention away from the screen (hard to do in my rooms as it fills most of the wall). I haven’t checking into whether DSX has various settings ala PLIIx panorama to tweak it‘s performance.

Also I know you were trying to get a better side surround effect due to the length of your seating. IMO the Audyssey wide channels will not help this. They seem to pull most of their information from the L/R channels. So pans across the front sound much wider however I don’t hear it helping front to back pans any if at all. I haven’t tried it but I think running a double pair of side surrounds as you once mentioned will give a more expansive surround effect than adding wide channels.

So basically I’m finding that the DSX height pulls to much sound up high and screws up the front soundstage as often as it helps it. The effect from the wide channels while sometimes helpful for side pans does little for front to rear pans and often inappropriately IMO draws the audio queues to far to the sides. You could get about the same effect just by moving your L/R mains farther apart.

So for now I’m preferring PLIIz. While not coming into play as often and more subtle when it does I think it works better overall in my room (13 x 21 x 8-11 vaulted)

Cheers,
Dean

Or at least bi-pole curious if you get them drunk enough....

I should clarify some things from my ramblings above.



Until they find a way to matrix height channels I think ambient is their best roll. It would be interesting to hear a Dolby version of a width channel.



I think M22s and QS8s are overkill for both rolls. My L/C/R were crossed at 40Hz while the M22s were 80Hz and the QS8s were 100Hz and I’ve found no timbre matching issues which I’m very sensitive to hence the M80 center.

AFAIR you have dual over and under centers? I’m curious how height channels will impact that.

Cheers,
Dean