Axiom Home Page
Posted By: Mathew stereo vs surround - 04/07/11 03:16 AM
I have been working with JC concerning a system for my house. After pictures & diagrams he determined that my room was less than ideal for surround sound. He suggested a pair of m60's or m 80's and either a vp 150 or a vp 180 and no surrounds. Is there anyone out there using a similar setup? If so how does it sound for home theater and/or music?

My second question is this: What is the major difference between using a receiver or using amps? Is there really that much difference in sound?

Thanks in advance for any help you can give me. I haven't bought any equipment since 1981 so this is all new to me.
Posted By: St_PatGuy Re: stereo vs surround - 04/07/11 03:27 AM
Welcome to the forum, Mathew!

I'm assuming there is mounting issues for surround sound speakers in your room? Is it possible to put the speakers on stands behind your listening position?

If all you can do is the front three speakers and a sub, then that will certainly be better than just using the TV speakers.

I think we are all interested in looking at your room to see what we are dealing with. We can try to help!

Ha ha, if nothing else, we are very good at spending other people's money. laugh
Posted By: CatBrat Re: stereo vs surround - 04/07/11 03:28 AM
My living room does not provide a place for surrounds. I have a 3.1 setup using 2 pairs of M22, a VP100, an M2 and an EP350. See signature line. I'm impressed at how good it sounds every time I listen to it. Movies or Music.

Here's my (CatBrat) living room area to mount surrounds. I just decided it would not sound right no mater where I put them. Note that the seating area goes all the way to the back wall.






Posted By: SirQuack Re: stereo vs surround - 04/07/11 03:31 AM
Can you describe your room, and why it is not ideal for surrounds according to JC?

Right now my upstairs setup has M22's, a VP100 center, and 350 sub, it it works very good for movies and music. There is no way you will get the same experience with just a front stage, compared to if surrounds are included. At some point I plan to add some Qs8's on stands or wall mount but will have to fish new wiring down from the attic.

A receiver has the processing and amplification integrated into one unit, versus having seperates (preamp and amplifier). A lot has to do with your room size and how loud you want to listen to music and movies. For most people a receiver in the 100-130 watts/ch would be fine. However, if your one of these people that like to try and achieve as close to true concert/orchestra and reference cinema movie levels, you might want to look at good seperates. They are built more robust and have more headroom to accomodate those dynamic peaks needed without runing out of gas.
Posted By: JohnK Re: stereo vs surround - 04/07/11 08:15 AM
Matthew, welcome. You give no details about how the surround question was "determined". At this point I'd consider such a decision to be highly questionable, since surround effects add so much to our enjoyment of both music and movies.

A receiver, of course, has an amp inside it, and is entirely satisfactory for powering Axioms unless the power demands are so unusually high that a separate amplifier with greater maximum output capacity is needed. Otherwise, in the vast majority of applications, there is no such need and there would be no difference in sound at all safe(to your hearing)listening levels.
Posted By: Mathew Re: stereo vs surround - 04/07/11 12:03 PM
My room is 12 X 19 with the TV on one of the 12' walls. There are 4 doors into this room. 2 on the front wall and two on the back wall. In addition on one of the 19' walls there is a brick fireplace that sticks out into the room 28 inches with an additional 17 inches for the hearth that is elevated 20 inches above the floor level. This will possibly block the right hand front speaker. On the back wall where I would have to put a surround, and exterior door opens inward and could either block or damage the speaker. Chair placement is another problem due to the layout of the room in relationship to the fireplace. When I get home tonight I will try and attach photos as they are on my home computer and I am at work.

As a side question can anyone give me pointers on adding an attachment? Under the FAQ section it says to go to the full screen view and click on file manager. I don't see a file manager or attachment button.

thanks, Matt
Posted By: SirQuack Re: stereo vs surround - 04/07/11 12:58 PM
To show a picture, you have to save your file to one of the online picture hosing services, for example, I use photobucket. Then you just copy/past the image tag into your post. Basically it would look something like this:

[img]http:/filename [/img]
Posted By: SirQuack Re: stereo vs surround - 04/07/11 01:04 PM
There is also a seperate gallery at the bottom of the main thread list where you can upload images as well.
Posted By: nickbuol Re: stereo vs surround - 04/07/11 02:03 PM
Yeah, I've done a quick sketch of my interpretation of your room layout, and while things may in turn be less than ideal, it doesn't mean that they would be bad or not worth trying. I am sure that JC isn't trying to steer you wrong at all, we just have more sets of eyes to look at things from different perspectives.

On a related note, since you are new around here, it should give you a good feeling to know that you are working with a company that isn't trying to just sell, sell, sell. They want to work with you and your needs/situation and not just over-sell you. That is what WE are for. smile Like someone else said, people on the forums like to spend other people's money. I started out looking at M22 fronts, VP100 center, and QS4 surrounds. Ended up with M60 fronts, VP150 center, and QS8 surrounds... All have been crammed into a small and VERY irregularly shaped 10'x15' space. Many things are possible.

Oh, and welcome by the way...
Posted By: Mathew Re: stereo vs surround - 04/07/11 06:18 PM
Hopefully these links will get you to pictures of my room.









Posted By: Mathew Re: stereo vs surround - 04/07/11 06:19 PM
Here they are again. Thanks in advance.
Posted By: nickbuol Re: stereo vs surround - 04/07/11 07:37 PM
Hmmm... I see what you are talking about. I still think that you could put some QS8s in there. I mean the goal of the surround channels for movies is to provide an engulfing sound field , not for exacting precision (at least for the most part). Thus the reason that the Axiom QS surrounds are so nice. You get sound firing in 4 directions to fill a lot of space.

When I first saw the pictures, I right away was thinking some M22 fronts for space. They could possibly be put next to your screen and not have to be on the floor like the larger M series. That would help to fire the sound past the fireplace. Add a good sub and the M22s are very nice.

Just some thoughts. Others will chime in.
Posted By: Cary Re: stereo vs surround - 04/07/11 07:58 PM

Do you actually use the fireplace? I'd ditch the mantle, hang my display over the fireplace. Then the speaker placement gets easy.

Cary
Posted By: Mathew Re: stereo vs surround - 04/07/11 07:58 PM
I listen to music about 50 % of the time. I'm just wondering how the M22's do with music. Everyone raves about the m60s and even more about the m80s.

The main concern with the rear surrounds is that the door which comes from the outside opens into where the rear speaker would hang.
Posted By: Mathew Re: stereo vs surround - 04/07/11 08:00 PM
I have suggested that numerous times but my wife isn't keen on that idea.
Posted By: CatBrat Re: stereo vs surround - 04/07/11 08:10 PM
How about hanging the surrounds on the side walls, but near the rear wall. One either above the book case, or affix a white board to the front of it and place the surround on the new piece of wood. For the other side, mount the speaker between door and window.

I posted some pictures earlier in this thread of my living room where I decided not to mount surrounds. Back in the day when I only had a HTIB setup with small speakers. I put one surround above the curtains about in the center of the room. Then the other one on the tall wall, but directly across from the other speaker, so it was only about halfway up the wall. This was sorta ok, but didn't work too well for those sitting in the back of the room.
Posted By: bdpf Re: stereo vs surround - 04/07/11 09:20 PM
I would put a door stopper for the door coming from the outside just enough so it doesn't touch the speaker and put the QS8s on the back wall.
Posted By: Sarang Re: stereo vs surround - 04/07/11 10:09 PM
Welcome to the forum Mathew.

Since you cannot put the TV above the fireplace, I'll suggest you the following:

Replace the 1 seater at the back of the room with the 3 seater leaving some place towards the window wall to walk up to the TV. Now, move the TV console to the center aligning it with the edge of fireplace ledge and the window wall. Place the M60's/M80's on the floor next to the TV console. Hang QS8's, one on the wall between the window and the door that exits out, and other on the fireplace brickwork towards the edge where the 3 seater is placed.

It would be a little odd that the bookshelf near the TV console will have to be approached from behind the TV, but the placement should serve your purpose.

Do you think this placement will work for you?
Posted By: Dave B Re: stereo vs surround - 04/07/11 11:18 PM
M22s with a sub are great for music.

JC is right though, that's a pretty suboptimal room. Even for 2ch music it's got issues, let alone placement for rears.

It's shaped very similar to my mom's family room but with different and much more intrusive fireplace placement.

Is the TV too big to go to the right of the fireplace to provide some balance there (and better viewing angle)? Probably. I actually like the stand it's on a lot but off on the far side like that it seems like kind of an afterthought.

What's your main seating position for TV viewing? For music listening?

I wonder if you'd be better off just putting stereo speakers on either side of the fireplace and sitting on the couch for music, not worrying about HT at all.
Posted By: 2x6spds Re: stereo vs surround - 04/08/11 12:34 AM
I agree with DaveB

M22s + [sub] = Happiness [power of 2]
Posted By: Mathew Re: stereo vs surround - 04/08/11 12:49 AM
So now that I am picking everyone's brain, does anyone have any experience with the Epic Grand Master series? If I can't convince the Boss (my wife) to move the tv elsewhere, The m60s or m80s might be blocked by the fireplace as they sit on the floor. The Grand Master has the m22s and the qs8s. The m22s by the tv or on stands may compensate for sound being blocked. I just wonder how this system handles music. Quality sound for music is very important to me. I know this will be a bad question but would I be better served to look at a similar system by another manufacturer for music reproduction? There are so many good sytems but I've made up my mind that I really like the Axioms.

Also with the door problems at the back of the room, how would the surround sound be if the Qs8s were mounted above the door height on the back wall?
Posted By: Pitbull24 Re: stereo vs surround - 04/08/11 01:04 AM
Mathew, I think your seating position and TV height when mounted above the mantle would not be comfortable. Definitely have yourself a tough room for surrounds; even if you are able to mount Q's on the back wall the couch is not positioned well for the back channels. It sounds like you may be more interested in music listening at this point, and i would agree with others and suggest M22's, vp150, and a sub to get the best you can in that room
Posted By: jakewash Re: stereo vs surround - 04/08/11 01:14 AM
I would most definitely recommend M22s, they are very musical and with a good sub are even better. I would even run QS8s in that room, one above the door and one above the wreath, not optimal but better than nothing. I would run the m22's on the stand right beside the TV and use a phantom center to start and see how that works for you, if you find it odd or dialogue not centered to the screen you could then move a full 5.1 system by adding a center, an M2 as a fair bit of the listening is off axis or even the VP100 would be great for that room.
Posted By: nickbuol Re: stereo vs surround - 04/08/11 01:52 AM
Mathew, you made a comment earlier about the concern with the M22's not being as "good as" the M60s or M80s... Even those with M80s (if they are being honest) get a little more low end than the M60s, but even that gets to be somewhat minimal if using a subwoofer.

Again, these are all designed very well and like I said, I almost went M22s for fronts but when talking to Alan at Axiom years ago, I was putting my setup in a much larger space, and the fear was that the speakers wouldn't be able to move enough of the air to be enveloping for movies (although they would sounds great for music), so I got the M60s and a big sub (again because I had a lot of air to move). Your space isn't very big and the M22s would provide you with great clarity for music and still plenty of "umph" for movies. Plus they will be an easier sell, I would think, with your wife due to their smaller size.

You may find that not only would the M22s sound great on their own, but possibly even better than the tower speakers due to the shape of the room and such blocking some of the sounds and creating strange reflection points with the bigger speakers.

The QS surrounds are very forgiving in their placement. I used to have them on my back wall and they were really, really good. When I put them to the side walls they were just a little better, that is all. I've seen pictures of people having one on a back wall, and one on a side wall due to odd available mounting locations. I believe that they just calibrated their systems to compensate in volume and tonal adjustment.

Good luck. And just remember who mentioned the M22s to you first... wink (Oh wait, that was CatBrat...)
Posted By: JohnK Re: stereo vs surround - 04/08/11 02:21 AM
Matthew, carefully studying your pictures, it appears that there'd be no problem with the left side-surround by mounting it about 5-6' up at the front edge of the outside door. The right side-surround could be placed either on top of the bookcase or on an upper shelf. It could be placed on any sort of support(our Canadian members strongly recommend hockey pucks for the best sound quality)to give the bottom driver of the QS at least 2" of space for the sound to radiate into the room.

I've used the M22s for eight years now for listening to almost entirely classical music, and can assure you that, especially when supported by a good sub, the musical reproduction is superb.
Posted By: Lampshade Re: stereo vs surround - 04/08/11 02:53 AM
I am in complete agreement with JC on this one. Where is he going to put the wires for the surrounds?

I would get a pair of 80's that matched the room's decor and be done with it.

whatever you decide....you need a rug.
Posted By: jakewash Re: stereo vs surround - 04/08/11 03:08 AM
Wires can be fished to pretty much any location with some patience and ingenuity.
Posted By: nickbuol Re: stereo vs surround - 04/08/11 03:27 AM
Originally Posted By: Lampaxiom
I would get a pair of 80's that matched the room's decor and be done with it.


But that in itself is another problem. Where would you put them? You would need to slide the TV and stand to the right so that the one M80 isn't in front of the door, and then you have an even worse issue with the one on the right being blocked by the fireplace. Plus there is a bookcase there with doors that would get blocked.

As for the wires, they can be hidden in many ways. Maybe the white trim boards along the floor could be removed or the brown trim along the ceiling, which ever has more space behind it...

I agree that a run would help. There is a log of diffusion in the room, but possibly not enough absorption.

Aw, heck. Just put on a home addition where your patio is with no fireplace, no bookcases, hide the wires in the walls, and get the M80 fronts, VP180 center, QS8 surrounds, and a big ol' EP800 sub... only $4786.10 for the speakers... Or spend about $1800 - $2600 on one of the Epic Grand Master systems in the current room and be blown away!
Posted By: CatBrat Re: stereo vs surround - 04/08/11 04:05 AM
I would empty that closet and pretend it didn't exist.
Posted By: Mathew Re: stereo vs surround - 04/08/11 11:41 AM
Thank you all for the information and suggestions. I would love to add a room to the back of the house where the patio is to house my home theater. But realistically I can't afford to buy the system, buy a receiver for $500-$1000 and then add a $10,000-$20,000 addition on the back of the house (LMAO).

I can't empty or block that closet because that is where my computer lives.

I do have a great option for the wiring. My wife's first cousin is an electrician so he will run the wiring for free with jacks at each location. I just have to buy the supplies.

As far as a sub for this system what do you guys think? EP 175, EP 350 or EP 500? Never having owned a home theater system, I have to ask the question of how much bass is enough and how much is to much? I have a friend who has a Polk & Onkyo system (I'm not impressed by it) and his sub isn't large enough for his man cave which is over 1/3 of his basement. On the other hand I don't want enough bass that it sets off a seismograph anywhere in the state.
Posted By: CatBrat Re: stereo vs surround - 04/08/11 11:54 AM
Your compute could live on/in a small desk somewhere, perhaps, or get a laptop or Ipad instead.

None of the Axiom subs will oversupply bass. They only fill in the lower portions without overdoing it. The more expensive ones will just do it lower and more linear (flatter) for more accurate reproduction, before your room changes everything (lol). Consider the EP350 as the smallest one you would use from the Axiom line. I know first hand, because I started with the EP175.
Posted By: MarkSJohnson Re: stereo vs surround - 04/08/11 11:55 AM
Mathew, I would definitely go for at least the 350, and maybe lean towards the 500 if you enjoy action/sci-fi movies.

Frankly, the 175 doesn't get an awful lot of love in that it simply doesn't put out anywhere near the other two subs!

Edit: And another welcome, by the way! smile
Posted By: nickbuol Re: stereo vs surround - 04/08/11 12:22 PM
Originally Posted By: Mathew
Thank you all for the information and suggestions. I would love to add a room to the back of the house where the patio is to house my home theater. But realistically I can't afford to buy the system, buy a receiver for $500-$1000 and then add a $10,000-$20,000 addition on the back of the house (LMAO).



Yeah, sorry. I shouldn't have made such a sarcastic recommendation to someone new here. I was purely joking about the house addition.
Posted By: MarkSJohnson Re: stereo vs surround - 04/08/11 12:51 PM
But, really.... it WOULD make us forum members happier if you built the addition. grin
Posted By: Mathew Re: stereo vs surround - 04/08/11 01:53 PM
Hey nickbuol, No offense taken. I laughed at what you posted. My answer was sarcastic also. But now that we are on the subject maybe you could lend me the money (LMAO).
Posted By: audiosavant Re: stereo vs surround - 04/08/11 04:50 PM
That room is pretty hopeless for decent surround HT in it's current configuration.

Best you can do would be to get the M3's and wall mount them. At least you would have a decent 2 channel music system.

Or get a new wife? wink

The M22's are the greatest bang for the buck product that Axiom makes imo. If you could rearrange the room properly, I would recommend them and a sub and surrounds. But with that out of the question your options are very limited.

I see that the will is there, but do you have the yarbles to make a stand?

In my home, I find the best place for speaker placement first and then I arrange the furniture around that!

But good audio is a priority in my house. A quality of living "issue".

Luckily, my lady shares my dogmatic approach to music and movies!

You could look into the Gallo "lifestyle" product line. Great sounding and unobtrusive, but it might be too odd or weird for those with conventional tastes.
Posted By: wilwom Re: stereo vs surround - 04/08/11 10:57 PM
Matthew, you have gotten some good advice considering your room limitations. Here are my two cents worth.

1. Get the M22s for fronts and set them on either side of the TV. Set the TV forward if necessary for them to fit on the sides. M22s are more than adequate to drive music to insane levels in your space and they are very accurate above 80 Hz.
2. Get a receiver that will let you set a phantom center. I think most will. In your room you won't notice any difference from a real center unless you need to set the center higher for dialog reasons.
3. Get QS8s or M2s for rears and mount (set) one above the bookshelf a foot away from the fireplace and wall mount the other high between the outside door and the large window.
4. Get a good sub for music below 80 Hz. Look outside Axiom for best value in the US. Be careful on size since you will have placement issues.
Bill
Posted By: DanielBMe Re: stereo vs surround - 04/09/11 12:29 AM
Seems to be you could quite easily get rid of the computer closet. On either side of the fireplace it looks like you have some type of cabinet holding a bunch of books. All it would mean is getting a different type of cabinet that could handle a computer as well. I've seen plenty enough of those around. Such as this, http://www.ikea.com/ca/en/catalog/products/40180061

If you do that you could then centre the tv on the wall and move the couch to the opposite end maybe 10ft away with a chair against the wall.

I think it would work prety well!
© Axiom Message Boards