Hi all,

I'm new to home theatre but have been building a system over the past five years to go with my new flat screen. I'm hoping that some of you might be able to give me some suggestions for a couple of missing pieces I need...keep in mind that I'm not looking to spend a lot of money so I would prefer budget-midrange options.

My current setup:

Axiom AX5s as Fronts
Axiom AX2s as Surrounds
Yamaha VSX 1018 7.1 receiver

I'm looking mostly for a good, cheap centre channel that would compliment my two sets of older Axioms. Ideally, I'd like to get one of the older Axiom centre channels to match the other speakers but I can't seem to find any, anywhere. Same goes for the rears.

Any suggestions? I'm aware of the newer Axiom speakers and their benefits/prices. Are there any other speaker manufacturers/models that would match well for my needs?

What is your budget? Have you looked at the Axiom factory outlet to save 10%? Normally you want to stay with the same brand so the speakers are voice/timber matched.

The q's are the best surrounds around, so you would be better moving the Ax2's to the rear channel, and get Qs4's or Qs8's for the side surrounds.

I would think the current Vp100 or VP150 would match up with the AX5's.

Thanks for the quick reply sirquack.

My budget is about $300-$500 so I'm considering the used market.

From the Factory Outlet. You could start with the center for now, and get the surrounds later. Or get the surrounds first and use your Ax5's in phantom mode to simulate the center, and get a center later as budget permits.

Qs4 surround $193 ea
Qs5 surround $243 ea
VP100 center $230

Tigre, welcome. I'd suggest that you could consider using one or perhaps both of your AX2s in a center channel setup which would complement your AX5 mains well. Then, for the surrounds get QS4s or QS8s which will allow you to enjoy the superior performance of the QSs.

Good idea John, can't really top that suggestion. The QS surrounds would be a great upgrade.

Jason

I had the same idea as John, use the AX2's as a center and then upgrade to QS's for surrounds.

Or you could keep looking for another set of used AX2s/AX5's to use as a center and forgo the idea of purchasing new.

Thanks all for your help. Moving into Qs4/8s might be a move I'd make down the road but probably not right now. Moving one of my AX2s to the center channel might be interesting...I guess I could move the other to the rear...hmmm.

I'd still need 2 cheap surrounds or alternatives. Finding some old Axioms would be sweet. Anybody have any leads?

Wouldnt that be a Pionner VSX 1018, not a Yammy. I have one how do you like it.Tom

Woops...I forgot the name brand of my own gear!

Yeah, it's the Pioneer for sure. I love it actually. Having True HD and DTS MA decoding, 1080p upscaling, a lot of different connection capabilities, and 7.1 channels for the boxing day $400 I paid for it, I can't complain. I miss the quality of 2 channel audio I have from my old 855 Rotel receiver but having a mostly futureproof receiver for that price was something I couldn't resist. I use an LG BH200 Blu-ray/HDDVD drive that has a good Qdeo upscaling chip so I actually turn off the upconversion on the Pioneer.

Pretty good audio quality though. I've been really happy listening to my now biamped AX5s using the Pioneer. Lots of power to run the 4ohm speakers. The HD audio really is powerful and sounds so much better. I haven't tried to calibrate the machine using the supplied microphone yet though,--have you?

Yes ..but I prefer my own settings..I didnt know you could run 4ohm on that..I read in manual how to set it to 6 ohms but I didnt think 4 ohm was compatiable with this

Oh, just leave it at 8 ohms. Setting it differently just limits the current.

Yeah. I spoke to a few people before I used the 4ohm speakers with this receiver. All said that it's perfectly ok to set the receiver to output 8ohms. Could open up some options to a few people.

Strange...does the receiver run hot bucause my stays cool

Cool as a cucumber. Lots of power for the 4ohms. The speakers have bi-amped hookups on the back so they're running with lots of power.

Good to know..wonder why Pioneer dosent include this in their manual,,they could sell more

Although most Rx can do efficient 4 Ohm speakers, few companies list them as 4 Ohm capable, using that whole liability excuse (in much the same way they have the current limiter function of the 6 Ohm setting). Companies have to assume that everybody is gonna sue them when they do something stupid and wreck their gear. It's easier to just point at the documentation and say "We told them not to!".

I hear you on the liability issue, I think all speaker manufacturers should supply impedence charts to prospective buyers (as well as freq. resp ect). This would help the consumer, but may put a dent in sales manufacturers of some of the '8' ohm rated speakers.

I notice Paradigm designates their speakers as "Compatible with 8 ohms".

It's really just an average anyway. Just another stat for the under informed to get hung up on.

According to the National Research Council of Canada, which Fredk kindly provided a link to (think it's on the av123 thread), many speakers which are designated as 8 ohms could probably have been listed at 4 ohms. Compare the '8' ohm Paradigm Studio 100s to the Axiom M80s rated at '4' ohms and it would appear, according to the charts that the Paradigm drops lower than even 4 ohms (lower than M80s) at 100hz. As someone else noted on the av123 thread, these manufacturer ratings could be about marketing. Once you say 4 ohms, you get alot of people questioning whether they have enough juice to power them. As you say, it's an average....heh, heh, some seem to be averaging UP though!!

Yes, there are quite a few manufacturers that are redefining the concept of "nominal". One of the thing with the M80`s 4Ohm, though, is that the additional demand is where the speaker requires more power (lower than 100hz) thus it is more demanding on the amp.

AS I pointed out, the M22's actually dip to 2 Ohms but are rated as 8 ohm. There must be more to the ratings than just the lowest point.