Axiom Home Page Forums General Discussion Advice from Axiom Owners QS8s vs. ERD-1 vs. FXi A4 vs. ADP-590

Hey, I'm brand new to the forum. I'm about to graduate from Law School and the deal I struck with my wife was that my graduation present was going to be my dream home theater set up. I graduate in May, have set aside some hard-earned dough and I am excitedly looking forward to my new toys.


My current hodgepodge setup is a 46” Panasonic Plasma (TH-C46FD18), Panasonic Blu-Ray (DMP-BD55), Sony A/V Receiver (STR-DE985), DCM Front Tower Speakers (KX212), a cheap Sony Center Speaker (Crutchfield offered it free with the receiver), EPI side surrounds (EPI 200B), my rear surrounds are by Akai (RPM8) and the jewel is my subwoofer, a Sunfire True Subwoofer Junior.

The sub stays, no matter what, I absolutely love it. From there though, I want to pick out the right surrounds, to match a new center speaker (and eventually the height and width speakers and an extra subwoofer for an 11.2 set up). Once 3-D has settled down, the TV and Blu-Ray player will be upgraded too.

So, I am looking for your thoughts on the rear and side surrounds (and center channel speaker). I have read every review I can get my hands on and have come down to these four choices. Please talk me through Axiom’s QS8s vs. Emotiva’s ERD-1 vs. Polk’s FXi A4 vs. Paradigm's Studio ADP-590.

So far, I have heard the Paradigms and the Polks, and I liked the Paradigms more. I am setting up an Axiom home audition with for the next few weeks. My main use is for movies (95%). My current room entertainment room is 30' x 42' with hardwood floors.

Also, having read quite a few forums and reviews, most users suggest that the off-axis listening of Paradigm's center-channel is better than either Axiom's VP-150 or 180. Your thoughts on that if you can (we host larger gatherings for movie nights about four or five times a year where guests would be off-axis)

Your thoughts and feedback are greatly appreciated.

Welcome.

Any way you would consider a vertical center channel?

Paradigm and Axiom's were founded under the same ground breaking design from Canada's NRC, so I can say they will have a similar sound. If you've heard the Studio lineup from them, that is similar to what you will hear from Axiom.

The Qs8's, in my opinion are hard to beat in terms of surround duty. They have been around for a long time, and have a huge following, even by non Axiom owners. The 4 drivers firing all in phase is unique to Axiom.

+1 and +1 to Tom and Randy's comments.
A vertical center will take care of any off axis issues. I wish I had known that when I originally built my HT as it would have saved me a recent speaker swap from the VP150 to the M2.

Secondly, the QS8's are simply incredible surround speakers. I have an all Axiom setup with QS8's - but I also built an HT for my in-laws that is all Paradigm with the ADP-590's. I am the tech department for my in-laws so I have setup, calibrated and watched many movies in their HT. I can say that IMO the ADP's are great and that the QS8's are excellent. I find the QS8's are just much better at creating an enveloping surround field vs. the ADP's. Also the QS8's are amazing at placing discrete sounds where there is no speaker. For example there's one cave scene in an adventure movie my kids love and there is water dripping all around. At one point it always sounds like there's water coming from the center of our HT ceiling nowhere near the QS8's. It's weird but I find they are diffuse and discrete as they need to be. I can't explain it but it is what I find when watching movies.

Hope that helps.

Yeah, funny you mention that. A couple of days ago, I was watching "Underworld, the rise of the Lycans" on Blu, and at one point when the werewolfs are attacking the human chariots, one of them jumps on top of the roof of the chariot, and I would swear the sound comes from my ceiling, pretty impressive.

Regarding this point, have people actually done direct comparisons of Paradigm vs. the 180? The 150 I can see, since it's been in the wild for a lot longer. I haven't really paid attention to people's comments on the off-axis performance of the 180, so I'm curious now.

Your system sounds like it will be great no matter what. I can't wait to see it all come together.

Yeah, I haven't heard any complaints about the VP180 other than that one guy with it installed in a console.

I've been listening to music on mine solo in a vertical orientation while I work on mudding my new HT room, sounds great

Hadn't thought of that, though I would be open to it. Where you place a vertically aligned center channel in relation to the screen?

Yeah, the QS8s are universally raved about, so that is what drew me to the Axiom name and line. I looked at and listened to Paradigm's Studio CC-690 Center Channel and loved it, which Axiom model is the most comparable? The VP-150 or 180?

Thanks.

From the look of that puppy, I'd say the 180. Be aware the 180 is HUGE. Very wide, and very, very deep.

So, for your surrounds, you would choose the QS8s over the Studio ADP-590s if given the choice then? Do you have a 5.1 or 7.1 setup for your HT? In 7.1, would you recommend 4 QS8s? (Two for the side surrounds and two for the rear surrounds)?

Also, which Paradigm center channel did your in-laws have?

Thanks.

Anecdotal stories like these uniquely fill QS8 responses on several forums (compared to other surround speaker reviews and comments)and really make me excited to try them out (and maybe own them).

We have a store in my area with some demo Paradigms that may be available for a good price. Given that the Axiom and Paradigm lines sound similar, do you think that I could mix Paradigm's Studio CC-690 Center Channel with 4 QS8 surrounds for a 7.1 setup with regard to the timbre matching and overall blend?

I think that would work just fine. Surrounds exactly matching the fronts aren't as big a deal as all the fronts matching.

You could put the center either above or below the screen (or one above and one below for you overachievers). Folks seem to think that the horizontal dispersion from a vertical center is better than any horizontally-oriented center channel.

BUT I think one of the big advantages of a vertical center is to have three identical speakers across the front. You don't sound like you want to replace your mains, which is fine. I've really liked all the DCM speakers I've ever heard.

If I was going to have a "dream home theatre" though, I'd get identical speakers for the L/C/R.

If you keep the DCM's, you're probably not going to get an exact timbrel match between them and the center channel. And that's okay, because even center channels from the same family (like Axioms) tend to sound a little different than their vertically-oriented brothers due to speaker placement and boundary effects and so forth.

Of course, most people aren't willing to make the aesthetic or design compromises necessary for a vertical center channel. I think that's okay, too. I'm really perfectly happy with my M60/VP100 setup, but I do recognize that designers have to work pretty hard on crossover baffle step correction on horizontal center channels, which can result in some tradeoffs you don't have to make on vertical speakers.

I think there is consensus around here that the VP180 is a pretty big upgrade over the VP150. I haven't personally heard a VP180, but I trust those forum members who have made the direct comparison in their homes.

I love my QS8's. I think they are terrific. I haven't heard your other surround candidates.

Have fun.

Thanks for the encouragement, I know it's a guy thing (my wife is perplexed how I can stay up late into the night doing research on speakers and HT info), but it's exciting now that the time to actually get my system is drawing near.

With regard to the VP 180, yes, I have seen one professional review (if I find it again, I will post it) and a thread too where the only knock on the 180 was off-axis listening and they liked the off-axis of the Paradigm Studio CC-590 and Signature Series better (but for the increased prices, especially for the Signature Series, unless I can get a fantastic deal on the Paradigm Center, the VP-180 sounds like the best bang for the buck so far).

Yes, I would choose QS8's over ADP 590's. The 'quadripolar' driver configuration of the QS's are capable of amazing acoustical feats. Like you, the search for a better surround is what led me to Axiom initially. I was originally looking at the Paradigm Cinema series but was really unimpressed by the little Cinema ADP surrounds. I started searching and found the Axiom QS8's and then their in/on wall solution and the rest is history.

My in-laws chose the Paradigm Signature W-Series in spite of me urging them towards Axiom. They had a much higher budget so did not mind paying more for the aesthetics of these speakers, and I have to admit they are gorgeous and well made speakers. They have the matching LCR combination using the horizontal center version. They do sound really great for on wall speakers.

I have a 7.1 setup with 4 QS8's for the side and back surround channels. I would in general recommend 4 QS8's for 7.1, but that can depend on room configuration. Some guys on the forum here have noted that if the back surrounds are quite far away you might be better at going with direct radiating speakers. My HT is fairly small and I am mostly equidistant from all 4 surround channels so QS8's all around make the most sense for my room.

Nicely done. +1

Senator(future aspirations?)welcome and congratulations on your upcoming graduation from law school. Be sure to study-up for the bar, of course. As for the surrounds, the QS8s are so outstanding that they are in my view the clear choice of those that you've listed.

The best "bang for the buck" in a center speaker would be a vertical unit identical or at least as similar as possible to the mains. The fine off-axis performance of the cc-590 and cc-690 is understandable, since they in effect are small vertical speakers handling the mid-range and treble, while flanking woofers handle the less directional bass. This was noted by the reviewer in the Epic 80 review now featured in the Axiom blog, where the extreme dispersion was the only area where the Paradigm center was considered to be superior. Again though, a regular vertical speaker is more cost-effective for such use.

Okay, that's good to hear. I'm thinking more and more, given the price difference between the comparable Paradigms ($1,599.00 for the Studio CC-690 and $1,199.00 for Studio CC-690) that I'm better off going with the VP 180 and an amp for about the same price. I'm thinking this one:
http://emotiva.com/xpa3.shtm
and I would use it to drive the front three speakers cleanly and powerfully, and then let the system run the rest of the four surrounds and the sub until I can upgrade this fall to the Onkyo or Intregra A/V or Pre/Pro 11.2 setup.

Bear in mind I've never heard the thing, though! And like I said before, make sure you have the space for it.

Listening to your VP 180 vertically and solo?

I'm not going to lie, I love the previous suggestion of having one above and one below the screen, with both horizontal...hmmm...maybe someday (after the bigger 3D Plasma screen, new 3D Blu-Ray and Butt-Kickers for the chairs...sigh...)

As for the size, the Center Channel that is in the lead right now, Paradigm's Studio CC-690, is 10" x 37-1/4" x 16-1/2" and 70 lbs. I pulled up the VP 180's measurements and they are pretty comparable at 9.25" x 39.5" x 17" and it is noticeably lighter at 56.8 lbs. It will just monopolize the shelf under the TV for now.

I saw that the stand for the VP 180 is $245.00 USD, which seems like a lot for a $720 speaker, so I will have to play around with that.

As for the fronts matching, I am approaching the overall dream setup in stages. Stage one is the four new matching surrounds and the (matching?) new center. Stage two is new tower speakers up front to match. Stage three is the new pre/pro and amps or A/V this fall (I'm waiting for the DTS Neo:X). Stage four (next Spring) is matching "heights" and matching "wides" speakers. Then, stage five is the second sub (I'm lusting after the EP800 v3 Subwoofer). All said and done, 11.2... wallah.

Yeah, I'd make my own stands. I mean, I'd have my dad do most of the work.

I love the two center channel speaker idea (maybe I will add that as stage six to the overall long term game plan).

Since it was suggested, I have been reading up on the vertical placement and people agree with you on the improved dispersion, I'm just still struggling with the look, the image of a home theater that comes to mind always has the center channel placed horizontally. I may have to play around with that when I get the speaker (and someday speakers).

Regarding my thoughts about the DCMs, see the post above too for the overall game plan, but I agree with you that the match seems like a must. I adore my DCMs and they partied like rockstars with me all through college (earning me more than a few noise violations), so I will be sad to lose them as the anchors, but, with an amp, they can be the music providers in the dining room or somewhere else in the house.

Thanks for your time and thoughts on the VP-180 and the QS8s.

The rapid feedback on this forum really speaks well of those who (assumably) have Axioms (the fact that there is a forum at all does too) and the passion they have for the products they decided to buy with their hard-earned money. It has gone a long way toward making it more likely that I may be among your company soon in Axiom ownership.

I'm still debating the single M80 vs. dual VP180 center channel arrangement. Right now I have a single M22, and it hasn't really disappointed me at all, but I still like the idea of a) having matching M80s across the front, just because it's supposed to be ideal to have them all match exactly, or b) having horizontal centers both above and below the screen to anchor the sound to the screen. I could have an M80 directly behind the screen if I went with an acoustically-transparent screen, but I don't think I want the extra expense and the slightly compromised sound and picture. I have some time to make up my mind. I'll be interested in what you decide works best for you, too.

Great minds...I loved Paradigm's center channel and their Sub 15 (I hear the Sub 25 is like a happy ending for your ears) but was underwhelmed with their surrounds. Like you, the QS8s intrigued me and have me considering just going with the whole Axiom line. Maybe next next week or so, it sounds like I may be able to audition a setup near my home with the M80s, a VP150, and 4 QS8s (sadly, no one in MN on the audition list has the VP 180).

As for Paradigm's Signature Series, I just keep coming back to the price, and at $2,299.00 (plus tax) USD for the Center your in-laws got, I could have 4 QS8s and a VP 180 for $1,744.20 USD, shipped. With the leftover $$, I could get the 3-Channel Emotiva Amp that I am considering and have a much cleaner and more powerful overall sound across the system. So, where they didn't, I think I will take your advice on going with the Axiom line.

Thanks for the thoughts on the 7.1 setup, that's good to know. My current room is huge (30' x 40') but, depending on where I get hired this fall, we will be moving and I don't know what my next entertainment room will look like size-wise. Given the QS8's capability to handle up to 400 watts and its high sensitivity, even if the two rear QS8s end being farther back, if I had them adequately powered, couldn't I just turn them up to compensate for the distance?

Over the course of law school, I have pointed to numerous problems in the laws as written and one of our professors pointed out that I should become a Congressman to rewrite the laws. A few of my friends took to calling me Senator and the nickname stuck. If that opportunity does present itself, I will jump at the chance (because it can be done so much better!) But for now, I am only worried about graduating, and per your suggestion, studying for the bar exam, and getting my reward in new speakers.

So, you suggest another (third) M80 instead of the VP 180 for the center channel speaker?
If I did get the VP 180 and mount it vertically above my plasma screen, would it best to tilt it back down toward my listening position when mounted?

If you're mounting vertically get the M80, if you're going horizontal, get the VP-180 - they are designed for those orientations respectively. They are after all more or less the same speaker with altered driver arrangements and crossovers to suit the intended orientation.

Good luck on the upcoming bar exam!

Dan's got the answers this week!

It's always a good idea to experiment with placement - including aiming. However, if you're going to mount a big speaker like that above your screen (whether a vertical M80 or a horizontal VP180), be prepared to do some engineering (i.e. shelf with chains or something). Those speakers are too deep and too heavy for traditional wall brackets.

I have heard the VP180 and had a CC690 lined up to listen to at a local dealer but unfortunately I couldn't make it down there; I hope to listen to one in the next couple of weeks.

Congressman, a vertical M80 would be ideal for the center channel, but you're using a good sub, and an M22 or even M2 would serve very satisfactorily and be easier to place.

Senator - I agree with JohnK. Even the small M2 in my experience performs better than the VP-150.

Ha, I like that idea. My father did carpentry for much of his life, so I will have to see what we can team up to create (or more accurately, what he can think up and I can help make).

I'm trying to prepare my wife for the long term plan (so she can at least know that somewhere down the line at least the speaker lust list has an end) so I am wish-listing the dream setup (I find that it gives me something to work toward as well). I love the two center channel speaker idea and was actually thinking about starting with the VP 180 horizontally under the screen, angled slightly up to the ear at seated positions and eventually adding an M80, placed it vertically above the screen, angled slightly down toward the ear at the seated position. I would amp them for proper power and I thought that would solve any off-axis listening issues. (Plus, they are both about the same price).

In researching that option, I've found that some audio experts warn against dual center channels (the particular responses begin 18 responses down):
http://ask.audyssey.com/entries/208239-dipoles-bipoles-or-monopoles-for-surround-speakers

Thoughts?

Regarding center channels - I am not an expert, but like you I did a bunch of research which led me to switching out my VP150 for the M2. I believe that 2 center channel speakers are very doable (CatBrat has done it among others), but must be done in the correct configuration to avoid weird effects or interactions with each other. For example, 2 vertical center channels would not make sense placed beside each other as you are simply starting to create another horizontal array but in a non-controlled way and you start getting into all of those horizontal array issues again. However if the speakers are separated you should start to get away from those issues. So to my logic, the only way to have 2 center channels with ample separation is one above and one below the screen. From there you get into 2 verticals, 2 horizontals or a vertical and horizontal mix as your options. I personally have never heard dual centers, but having above and below screen seem to have worked for a few forum members at least.

Starting with a good horizontal (or vertical) center speaker and then trying options from there makes a lot of sense to me!

I've used my VP100 in/on-wall for a little over a year and always noticed a lack of off center dialog volume. Decided to try the M2. This solved the off center volume problem, but introduced (to my ears and room condition) male vocals lacking in the lower end, more-so than just the VP100. So now I have the M2 above the screen and the VP100 under. Next week, I should have a VP150 in/on-wall that I ordered to replace the VP100. I got a good price on the auction so, why not? But, I don't know how this will change things. I do like the M2 + horizontal better than just one or the other. Better overall sound. I'll have 7 tweeters up front. Now with 6 it is a bit too bright for music, but cymbals really sound good. It also makes the upper end of other instruments, such as piano sound more realistic.

I'm thinking with the M2 above the screen and the VP150 below the screen that I'll have the following condition. The M2 plays a couple of db lower than M22. The VP150 plays a couple of db higher than M22. After Pioneer's MCACC calibration, It'll probably lower the over-all volume of the center pair because of the VP150's higher volume. This may cause the M2 to be mostly in-audible. Since they are on the same channel I can't turn the VP150 down without installing some sort of external volume control. But the M2 would come into play more for off-axis listening in this case.

CatBrat without knowing what you define as "lacking in the lower end" you might want to try a vertical M3 as a center for comparison. The M3's exhibit "fat" characteristics to the lower registers of male vocals. You might like that, but I find it unnatural.

Yes, I've thought of that. Using an M3 instead. It'll have to wait for another day when I can afford to order a single M3 to try it out.

Now, if Axiom Audio would send me one to try out, I'd be willing to pay postage both ways.... Hint, hint.

If you buy one then return it you only pay postage one way, just that initial cost for the purchase to overcome but cheaper overall.

I was reading up more on comb filtering and came across this article, interesting read:
http://www.realtraps.com/art_spaces.htm

Thanks for the good luck wish on the bar exam, I will happily accept it.

After looking at more comb filtering effect research, I am still leaning toward the upside down T-shape idea with the horizontal VP-180 just below the TV, angled slightly up toward the ear level at the seated position and the vertical M80 above the TV, angled down toward the ear level at the seated viewing position.

As far as options go, it seems to me that you could have, as you mentioned, one VP-180 horizontally above and below the screen. You could rock two vertical M80s either side of the TV or have one vertical M80 above and one below.

The two alignments that seem most efficient are 1)the VP-180s above and below and 2)the VP-180 below and the M80 above. And since other posters have suggested that the off-axis issue is most effectively addressed with the vertical speaker, that seems to be the best solution (if I can successfully concoct an effective wall mount for the angled M80 above the screen).
I may have to tap my best friend of many years who does custom cabinets and entertainment centers for help on that project.

I think that's serious overkill. I would try a single VP180 or a single M80 first before deciding you need multiple speakers for the center channel.

Ken's got a good point, but it's fun going overkill - especially with someone else's money! Now, how would you go about with a quad-center channel arrangement... ?

Seriously though, 3 M80's or other good vertical speaker equivalent across the front would be the ideal. I think adding to that might start to make the center channel sound different than the L&R channels which defeats the purpose of this exercise. The double center idea makes most sense to me when you're asking smaller center channel speakers to 'keep up' with larger L&R speakers. If they're all already equal, I am not sure what you'd gain by adding another speaker.

A lot of pain in calibrating? Also extra dough for an extra amp channel.

I also think it's overkill. If you can accommodate 3 M80s across the front, that would be the way to go and I see no point in even considering the VP180. The VP180 is meant for those of us that can't accommodate a M80 as a center and is an attempt to make a horizontal speaker sound as good as the M80 (and a success IMO). It is nevertheless a horizontal speaker and therefore, even though its off-axis is good, it will never be as good as the M80. I think you'll be very happy with either setup and no extra center would be needed.

First, let me echo the sentiments of those above who say that a dual M80/VP180 configuration is overkill. However, . . . yes there’s always a “however,” if money is no object (i.e. there’s nothing better you can think of to spend the extra money on) then the idea of a dual M80/VP180 configuration has also intrigued me based on extensive listening to both vertical and horizontal center configurations. This is the best configuration I came up with when I lived in an apartment (scroll down for the pictures):

http://www.axiomaudio.com/boards/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=218171&Searchpage=4&Main=15077&Words=%2Bm80+%2Babove&Search=true#Post218171

Here is my present configuration:

http://www.axiomaudio.com/boards/ubbthre...true#Post309421

If you want all the details you can read through those threads but here is what I’ve found in a nutshell. 3 identical tower speakers on the same plain across the front are the best for music hands down. Having one of the vertical towers above the screen (as long as the midrange drivers aren’t far apart) creates a nice wall of sound that sounds equally good for both music and movies, but can cause a lead singer and drummer to sound like they are on a dais. Having a horizontal center speaker above the screen creates an even bigger wall of sound effect than a vertical center above the screen which can sound great for movies but smears the front soundstage for well recorded music. A horizontal center speaker below the screen creates a more seamless soundstage for movies though not as big as above than a single or dual (side-by-side) vertical center but causes the same smearing for music. A dual vertical above and horizontal below center creates the biggest soundstage but also suffers from the smearing of music. The best of all worlds that I have found so far is a dual center vertical below (actually on the same plain as the mains) and horizontal above, selectable so the horizontal can be turned off for music and on for movies gives the best of all worlds. . . seamless music and huge front soundstage for movies (very “movie-theater-like”).

The only reason I haven’t purchased a VP180 for above my screen yet is that I have other additions which I think will add more to the mix and the fact that I will need to beef up the circuits feeding my AV room because they are already stretched to the limit with what I’ve got.

So yes it is overkill. You may find an extra subwoofer, Buttkicker, midbass module, curtains, or any number of other things would be a better use of the money but if you want what is IMO the ideal setup, especially if you have a large screen then dual vertical under horizontal over selectable for vertical only or both is the best of all worlds.

Yeah, it sounds like when it comes to the dual center stage (ideally sometime next fall if all goes well), I will add the third M80 and I will have it on the floor with the front two, then mount the VP 180 above the screen (which should not need much angling, if at all). Until then, I'll keep the VP 180 under the screen.

I heard back from the gentleman who is going to let me audition his Axiom setup, sounds like maybe next week sometime, I'm excited.

If you do get a chance to hear those two head to head, please post your thoughts, I would love to hear them.

only thing of major difference is the cost. over $7500 for paradigm Studio 100's setup and just over $4400 for Axiom's M80's setup. In Canada that is

Most users on the forum seem to indicate that the VP 180 is a nice upgrade in sound and performance over the VP 150. So, if I start with the VP 180, would you agree that I'm better off with that as opposed to the M2?

After looking even more at comb filtering effect posts and research on the 'net, the T-shape, dual center speakers (with the horizontal VP-180 just ABOVE the TV/Screen, angled slightly down toward the top of the ear level at the seated position and the vertical M80 below the TV/screen, angled ever-so-slightly up toward the ear level at the seated viewing position), seems to be widely raved about. In many of the high-end audio forums, especially with users who have large home theater spaces, they speak very highly of adequately powered dual centers in that arrangement (which ties in to everyone's views on this board that the best possible arrangement is three vertical speakers across the front), pointing to great dispersion across the whole room as one of the main benefits.

I think that's the new long term plan, especially since it poses far less difficult mounting challenges. (Angling the VP-180 downward just requires an angled shelf with a lip on the front to hold the speaker in place-immensely less of a hassle than trying to angle an M80 downward near the ceiling).

Great feedback, thank you! Your post really cements my long term plan and the details for a dual center surround setup. I did a temporary upgrade on my center channel today and installed the matching DCM KX Center channel. I've been playing around with it and the Sony center channel speaker, experimenting with listening positions and angles, so I should have the kinks of a dual center setup mostly worked out by the time my eventual system arrives.

Okay, so I've done some more shopping around (now that I am on my center speaker kick). All the center speakers I have demoed, list higher top-end frequency response ranges (some by quite a bit-30,000 Hz, i.e.-http://www.bestbuy.com/site/Definitive+Technology+-+Mythos+Three+Dual+4-1/2%22+2-Way+Center-Channel+Speaker/6639364.p?id=1151658129688&skuId=6639364)

Now, I understand that the human ear can readily perceive from 20Hz - 20,000 Hz and that the perception of the upper range decreases as we age, but I still feel like I'm somehow missing out by getting speakers that "don't go to eleven" by capping out at 20,000 Hz. Thoughts?

You can't hear anything above 20k Hz. Seriously. Frequency response above that is marketing hype.

There's no good reason to feel that way. 20KHz can't in fact be "readily" perceived. There are almost no musical harmonics in the top few thousand of Hz and the normal loss of sensitivity of the human ear at higher frequencies(e.g., the Fletcher&Munson curves)makes them of largely only academic significance at normal listening levels. For example, when the upper limit for FM broadcasting was studied, the result was that it was set at 15KHz, since a higher limit had been found to be of no audible significance.

I guess if you get that warm and fuzzy feeling knowing that your speakers are playing sounds only dogs can hear then by all means by them. You should be happy your purchase, with no sense of regret.

But first I would suggest playing some test tones through what ever speakers you have and while holding a SPL meter see where the point is that you no longer hear anything vs. the point at which the test tones or speakers cease to play. I can still hear to about 18khz with this non scientific method and I do not feel I am missing anything, especially considering much of the equipment used for playback isn't spec'd for anything higher than 20khz either.

^Great suggestion! I was able to borrow a digital SPL meter from a cousin who used to do home theater installation and I went and tested some of the speakers that went above 20kHz. Four things became apparent to me. First, most receivers do not even offer reproduction ranging above 20kHz. Second, using high-end receivers that did, material in that range is very limited. Third, using a specific test SACD that features recordings (on loan from my cousin again-the SACD had chapters marked for the various ranges) in those higher ranges, nearly all of the speakers capped out at by 22kHz on the SPL meter, regardless of whether the speaker listed 30kHz at its top end (the source SACD had segments up to 50kHz). Finally, I could not hear anything above 19.2kHz, so my limited perception renders everything above that moot regardless.

So, I feel immensely better about this and have verified what you have said, it is not a valuable spec. in the equation. Thanks for your thoughts, you were completely right.

Wow, 19.2kHz is really impressive!

That will drop now that he will play the M80s above 95db for hours on end

I was very happy with my own results considering I have worked in very loud environments when younger and never used hearing protection. I consider myself very lucky.

Now that you have 'tested' your hearing, there are those that will suggest those ultrasonic frequencies do add to the 'feeling' of the music/sound akin to the subsonic subwoofer notes you don't hear but feel. I have had one occasion to listen to a super tweeter set up and I found it didn't add anything, YMMV.

A quick power question. Having only had A/V receivers before, as I look to amp my final setup, what power recommendations would you suggest?

A receiver might be enough.

If you really want to get external amplification, I'd get at least 200wpc, and from a trusted manufacturer like Outlaw, Rotel, etc. Solid State amps don't have moving parts in most cases and the technology has been mature for a while, so I wouldn't hesitate to buy a good quality used piece.

Senator, you certainly don't need to describe what you found as "limited perception". It's quite typical for your age(if you're 24 as I was when I graduated)and is more than sufficient for full enjoyment of the great music available to us.

As to the power requirements, a watt is a defined unit of electrical power and doesn't vary with the type of unit supplying it. No more is needed with a separate amplifier than is needed with a receiver. With speakers of average or slightly higher sensitivity, such as the Axioms, typical receivers(or separate amplifiers)rated anywhere in the 100-150 watt area can drive them to all safe(to your hearing)listening levels or beyond.

Can say much about all this speaker since I only have Axioms and now a pair of KEF, but the QS8´s are the nicest speakers I got. They are really awesome!

I was originally thinking that a receiver might be enough, but I tested one of Onyko's newer receiver, which was listed at 145 watts per channel. In actually testing the lines, with all nine channels running, output was 90-115 watts, so it was not as advertised. I tested a Sony ES listed at 125 watts and found it dropped all the way into the 50s, with all channels running. So, it seems like dedicated, concentrated power, via amps and maybe a pre/pro sounds like a better bet for sexy sound. Since the Axioms handle up to 400 watts, I am just trying to get an idea on what wattage I should set my sights on? (And I am also open to user's suggestions for amps too--so far I like Outlaw and Emotiva the best for bang for the buck and reviews).

Thanks for your thoughts.

Yes, the unit was "as advertised". The FTC amplifier power regs require the rating to be per channel with at least two channels driven simultaneously for a continuous period of at least 5 minutes at the full rated power. An "all channels driven" rating is unrealistic in real world home listening outside the testing lab. Rarely would even two channels be driven at full power simultaneously; multiple channels essentially never are in that condition, as testers such as those in Sound&Vision point out. The FTC explicitly rejected last year a proposal to require an all channel driven rating and affirmed the two channel requirement.

The maximum power ratings on speakers relate to the power(generally conservative)which could be handled without permanent damage to the speaker. They have nothing to do with the power actually required. As stated previously, ratings anywhere in the 100 watt area should do the job. Unused headroom is simply that: unused.

Used Rotel, Parasound, Bryston etc. amps are also another source of cheapish amplification

See, this is why you guys are best. ^I've never heard this anywhere else.

I tested some more speakers and I got to hear a set-up with some B & W speakers. They ran an Integra A/V Receiver (rated at 140 Watts/Channel @ 8 ohm) and then they ran the same clips through the Integra using the pre-outs into a Parasound amp (250 watts rms per channel into 8 ohm, all channels driven). Leaving the volume the exact same, I was blown away by how much better it sounded, especially at lower listening levels. I expected the gains to be mainly during louder sections, but I actually noticed the biggest difference in the quieter sections, especially with on and off-screen dialogue. It was more crisp and clear, especially female voices and higher pitched sounds/tones.

In providing more power to your speakers, have others found the same to be true?

The only way of actually "providing more power" to a speaker is to play it louder so that more power is actually used. If for example 5 watts are being used at a particular instant in time, simply connecting a 100 watt or 1000 watt amplifier instead of one having a 10 watt rating doesn't give it a watt more of power.

Edit: the volume wasn't "the exact same" if the setting on the volume control was unchanged, since the gain of the Parasound was different than that of the internal Integra amplifier. Slight differences in loudness can be misinterpreted as a qualitative rather than a quantitative difference. This is why in blind listening tests one basic requirement is that volume be matched to within 0.1dB.

Yeah, what JohnK said, especially about the level matching. The salesperson was either stupid or deceitful. "louder" always sounds "better", and there's no way that the amount of gain between those amps was coincidentally exactly the same.

+2 to what JohnK and Tom said. However, if the system was properly level matched you may have still noticed some slight differences ie. cleaner, crisper sounding at louder levels vs. the receiver's amp section. I have noticed this change and felt the mid bass punch was better with separate amps vs my Denon 3808's amps. You have to figure out your own cost of diminishing returns point is to justify going with separates, IMO, for me right now my 3808 is just fine.

Okay, went back with the ol' SPL meter and regulated the actual output (decibels) between watching the main clip on the THX DVD I ordered for testing. I still noticed clearer dialog and brighter high tones, the enriched fullness of the music and speech was noticeable. The amped setup, without adjustment, was louder (in decibels) so it had to be turned down to compensate. But, even when adjusted, the loud sections sounded better and I could understand even the quietest dialog without effort on the amped setup.

I closed my eyes and let a friend freely switch back and forth between the amped setup and the A/V Receiver alone and I was eight out of ten in guessing which was the amped setup. (He would pause the scene, sometimes switching it, sometimes not, adjusting the volume accordingly to keep the decibels the same).

Again, great points and suggestions. I'm learning so much as I go hear, this has been awesome.

The point to be emphasized relating to your report is that the amplification process contains no mechanism which would make dialog clearer at actually equal sound levels.