The upgrade bug has hit. I’m hoping to get advise on speakers and A/V receivers. I listen to 80% HT, 19% radio, 1% CDs, this might change with the new music CD/DVD formats. Music is 85% Rock/top 40, 15% everything else. I’m beginning to like jazz, piano, sax, and trumpet. (Dire Straits “Your latest trick”)

I’m undecided on 5.1, 6.1, or 7.1.

I like tight base and I don’t’ like anything missing in the middle and high end.

The existing room is 21.5X11X8 with an attached 11X9X8 dining room. The TV and main speakers use 11’ of a 20’ wall.

Existing system is a Yamaha R8 with Klipsch Heresy II speakers. The new Klipsch speakers seem to lack balance, nothing in the middle. The sound is expected since they use larger mid/woofer drivers and a horn loaded tweeter. This seems to rule out using the Heresy speakers in the new system because matching speakers is critical for 5.1.

The speaker list has been reduced to Polk LSi9, Axiom M22ti, and NHT M5 or M6. The speaker configurations are listed below,

Polk; 4-LSi9, LSiC, and subwoofer
Polk; 2-LSi9, 2-LSi/FX, LSiC, and subwoofer
5-NHT M5 and subwoofer
5-NHT M6 and subwoofer
Axiom; 4-M22ti, VP150, and subwoofer
Axiom; 2-M22ti, 2-QS8, and subwoofer

The subwoofer list includes HSU VTF-3, SVS CS-Ultra, and SVS PB2-Plus.

I’ve listened to NHT M6 and B&W CM2 and CM4. The NHT M6 speakers were great. They actually sounded better the CM2 using the same Rotel stereo. The CM2 speakers may not have been broken in. At a second store, I was amazed at the sound coming from the CM2 speakers connected to a Yamaha 3300 or 2400. It was amazing how they disappear. The local Polk dealer didn’t have the LSi9 speakers available for listening.

Now for the questions

1) Has anyone compared the NHT, Polk, and Axiom speakers listed above?
2) How tight and or boomy is the bass of the LSi9 and Axiom speakers compared to the NHT speakers?
3) Is two-speaker imaging needed when dealing with 5.1, 6.1, or 7.1?
4) Is the disappearing speaker design (like the B&K CM2) needed with 5.1, 6.1, or 7.1?
5) Do sealed speakers usually have tighter (less boomy) bass then ported designs? (excluding subwoofers) Or is there more to it?
6) What are the best speaker types for side surround and rear surround in a 7.1 setup? (Bipole/Dipole) It looks like LSiFX is the best design for a 5.1 speaker configuration.
7) How do the Polk LSiC the Axiom VP150 compare?
8) Generally speaking what is the brightness order for the following tweeter designs? Titanium, Aluminum, Ring Radiator, CPC (Paradigm)
9) Is the Polk LSiC enough of a speaker for the center channel?
10) Will a Rotel RSX-1055 caliber A/V receiver be needed for the Polk and NHT speakers when matched with a good powered subwoofer and a crossover point of 80Hz?
11) Will a Yamaha RX-V2400 be able to drive the Polk and NHT speakers given a crossover point of 80Hz?
12) How future proof is the Rotel RSX-1055 receiver?
13) Has Rotel released any software update?
14) Will the Rotel RSX-1055 be able to support DD IIx?

Sorry for the long intro!

Rex

First off this is what I'd pick:

Axiom; 2-M22ti, 2-QS8, and Hsu VTF-3

Since you're 80% HT...the QS8's are amazing surround speakers.

Now on to your questions:

1) Those specific ones...no. But I did listen to NHT and Polk before deciding on my Axioms. The Axioms have TIGHT bass, a superb clarity. Nothing touches their clarity.

2) see #1

3) ?

4) ?

5) I believe there is more to it, because both axiom and Hsu are ported, and their bass it TIGHT.

6) Most people like speakers with good immersion ability as the surrounds (QS8's are better at this than any surround I've ever heard. I switched from Polk LS f/x surrounds to the QS8's. There's no comparison) For the rear one or two channels most people tend to opt for a direct radiating speaker. (I personally have the M2i's in the rear.)

7) I haven't heard the Polk center

8) ?

9) see #7

10) Needed? No. You may want the extra oomph of a nice Rotel receiver, but most any receiver will drive any of these speakers. (I have Rotel myself and love it.)

11) I don't know why it couldn't

12) Depends on what you mean by "future proof". If I were you, I'd get the best 5.1 receiver you can get. With the QS8 surrounds you won't miss those rear channels.

13) Visit Club Rotel for all your Rotel questions. They can help you best.

14) see #13

Okay, I'll try to fill in here...

1) Yes, I've listened to some of the Polks and NHTs you listed, and given the descriptions of your sonic preferences, I would go with the Axioms. In particular, NHTs are good speakers but they are VERY inefficient (insensitive) -- and to my ears they did sound like that.

2) The Axioms' bass are as tight, or even tighter than the NHTs. MUCH tighter than the Polks.

3) 4) Yes and Yes. Imaging/soundstaging and "disappearing" capabilities (transparency) are extremely important attributes of speakers both in 2-channel stereo and multi-channel surround configurations. IMO, the Axioms excel in these areas.

5) One can produce a boomy and sloopy bass as well as a tight and accurate bass, using either sealed or ported designs. Individual design details are MUCH more important and relevant than these cabinet alignments.

6) A popular configuration is to have multipole speakers (such the QS series) as side surrounds and monopoles as rear surrounds. But it is up to your preferences, too.

7) To my ears, the VP150 wins in clarity and details.

8) See 5). Again, specific design details of these drivers and crossovers, as well as the "voicing" within the completed speaker, are MUCH more relevant than the materials used in the tweeter diaphragm.


As for the receiver, in addition to Rotel (which is excellent), I would suggest you consider the Yamaha VS-X2400 and Pioneer 53TX/55TXi -- these receivers feature the YPAO/MCACC automatic room/speaker EQ, which many folks here (including myself) regard as seriously useful. If you are interested in DPL IIx, I believe that a IIx-updated version of the Yamaha 2400 will soon be available in North America (Asian version is already IIx-savvy).

Umm, if you are looking at $900 a pair NHT and Polk speakers, why not look at the $800 a pair M60's instead of the $400 a pair M22's. These speakers would easily beat the NHT's and Polks in any department. And factor in the free 2 day shipping and no tax, and you would actually be spending less. The Axioms are also much better looking speakers with all the finish options.

If you are getting these for less on the internet, take in mind that the customer service and warranties will come nowhere near Axiom levels.

I say go with the ever popular:
M60
VP150
QS8
HSU VTF-2 or SVS PBS-2 in one of the cool new finishes.

Thanks for the info Spiffnme, Sushi, and Snippy.

The M60, QS8, and VP150 are an option I'm looking at. Adding a HSU sub and a RX-V2400 receiver and I think I stay around my $4K limit.

The sales person stated that the NHT speakers take alot of amp to drive them.

Sorry more questions,

Based on what you’ve watched and listed to,
1) What is the percentage of sound that comes out of the side and rear surround speakers? Given that the sound coming out of all of the channels for a 5.1, 6.1, and 7.1 system adds up to one.
2) What is the frequency response of those channels?
3) Is the percentage breakdown for movies different then the two new audio formats?
4) The previous three questions can be summed up by, how much speaker is need for the side and rear positions?
5) Are the QS8 ported?

1)Every movie has a different sound mix. Some movies constantly use the surround channels and LFE while others never use the surrounds or LFE.
2)The point of 5.1 is to have 5 full frequency channels of sound.
3)The Music formats are almost always more aggressive in their use of surrounds, but some can still be quiet in the surrounds and depends on the mix.
4) The QS8's will work better than anything for movies, I use them for DVD-A and they work incredibly well. So I would say go with the QS8's.
5) No, but why does that matter?

I agree with what snippy has summarized.

In the majority of movie/music mixes, the average sound levels coming from the surround channels are significantly lower than front channels (except for those relatively few music recordings that sound like you are sitting right in the middle of the band players). This is because, in general, movie or music directors don't want to detract your attention too much from the front.

That said, the surround channels may still contain occasional peak sound levels that are as loud as the peaks in the front channel. So, you don't want to skimp too much on surround speakers.

Reading your post has me wondering...Does anyone ever stick to a pre set limit?

Let's change the question.

How do the Axiom M60 speakers compare to current Paradigm Monitor 7 and Studio 60 speakers?

Well, they blow away the Monitors. (OK, OK, I haven't heard the Monitor 7s for awhile, and I've never heard the M60s). However, pmbuko had Monitor 9s (clearly superior to the 7s when we listened to them) and upgraded to M22s. Which blew the 9s out of the water. Therefore, if M60s are better than M22s, and 9s are better than 7s, M60s must be light years better than Monitor 7s. I have a feeling that the Studio 60s are a better match, but when I heard a pair of Studio 100s (original model), I was distinctly unimpressed.

I auditioned the monitor 7 and I now own M80's. There is no comparison.

We had a lot of fun on those speaker audition trips. Maybe you should try to find a better deal than Axiom so we can go out and listen to more...

Like you're going to get out of the house much soon...

I'll be a prisoner any day now... Looking forward to it, actually.

Thanks for you input, Kcarlile, Pinoe, and Pmbuke,

Comparing a six-driver system($1100 mail-order) to a three-driver system($668-retail) isn't a very good comparison. Second I will be adding a sub-woofer to the system to fill in the base. Third please explain how they are better, off axis uniformity, flat frequency response, speakers disappear, easier load on an amplifier. Better base isn't going to count.

How do the M80 speakers compare to the Monitor 9, Monitor 11, or Studio 100 speakers from Paradigm?

How do QS8 compare to the ADP-370 or CADP-470?

How does the VP150 compare to the CC-370, CC-470, or CC-570?