Axiom Home Page Forums General Discussion Home Theater QS-8, M3, QSM-38 as surround backs...

Just finished two hours of trying QS8 and M3 as surround backs (surround sides staying QS8 the whole time). It was a very, very focussed set of tests entirely devoted to DVD-Audios from Tacet who are distributing the instruments all around the listeners. Those DVD-Audios assumes you have 5 floor-towers distributed in circle, so any HT settings is bound to fail to some extent.

I finished with 15 minutes of PLx-II to finalize my "findings"

QS-8 Alone
----------
Provided they are high-enough (2 feet above hear level) and not too high (maximum 2 feet above hear level) and roughly 2-2 feet behind listener's position, they have a lot of presence and enough "direction" to identify the instruments that are supposedly behind. I really did not have time (and additional pairs or arms) to determine if my 2-2 distance is a limitation or just that I gave up too fast.

M3 Alone
-----------
More positioning, but not enough presence. Actually, the positionning might even have been annoying. But I could feel that for movies it could be good. (yes, I remembered to compensate for the difference in sensitivity!) The fact that they were carrying the two back channels with the side QS-8 might be the problem.

QSM-38
--------
Inspired by all the Frankensteins of the audio world that are positing here, I tried something new (at least for me). I extended the cables (my connectors are banana male/female so it is kid's play to connect in parallel) from the QS-8 to include the M3. Well... it works! This afternoon I will spent some time with regular music and movies, but for this very precise case (Tacet DVD-Audios), these were the best so far. Presence, direction and even a tad punchier bass.

PLIIx
--------
For PLIIx, the palm goes to QS-8 alone.

Conclusion
----------
I am seriously considering trying with M22s in the back!

Wouldn't that be a QSM11 if you want to follow the Frankenstein convention ?

You have conventions? Now THAT's scary!

Actually, if you go with Axiom's conventions, 2 M80s lashed together are M100s.

Yes, the ISO procedure for naming frankenspeakers will be posted shortly .

Addendum:

2 more tests. Since testing the back channels with 6.1 movies will require a LOT of noise (and that my neighboors are home), I switched testing back to M3... which lead me to another backsurround test for Tacet DVD-Audio.

I tried the 2 M3 as center channel (like the "M44"). Not impressive. For music, it was quite alright. But dialogs were not as transparent as with the Wp-150.

That test, though, led me to a "hum... why not configure my system for 6.1 and use the VP-150 as back?". Well... Not very good. It is really not designed for that. I had to boost the channel +8db to have the instruments in the back start standing out... but it sort of killed the overall sound!

So... leave the VPs in the front!

Regarding the M6 , what was the orientation of the M3s?

Four positions:

Vertically: I tried them near the edge of the TV (obtructed the image, but that was not the point) and close to each other. Your comments on the M44 apply exactly.

Horizontally: Both TWWT and WTTW.

OK, I'm done with meddling with things for a while! I completed my last tests last night.

For the back surrounds, I ended the tests with movies using DD-Ex or DTS6.1 (Star Wars, LOTR, Gladiator, Monsters Inc). Of the 3 combinations (Q8, M3 or QS8+M3), the only one that gave clear-enough results to pass beyond pure "impressions" (about one scenes out of three) are QS8 alone. The M3 did add some direction on moving objects, but it was frequenly more negative (attracting attention when none was needed or not doing a better-enough job than the QS8 when it was needed) than positive. But that could be just me!

Now M3 as mains: Surprising little beasts. They had a hard time making their presence felt with the rest of the 7.1 setup. I had to boost their output by +10db to restore some balance. But, in stereo, they seemed to have a good range and very descent neutrality.

And the grand finale: M83 That test was long (lots of different connection methods) and only in 5.1 since I was frequently using the back surround channels for M3 as mains. Anyhow...

I tried the M3 in two positions: 1) straight up 2) upside down so the tweeters would align. 1) was systematically bad so I pushed tests with 2) further and will only be discussing those.

The combo M80+M3 makes a "bigger" and more spacious speaker. In stereo, it adds "atmosphere", but it does lose in stage information (direction). In 5.1, the lesser direction info was a nuisance. So, as far as I am concerned, the "M83" is not a very good idea.

Conclusion of the whole two-day testing

I will stick with a "pure" EP-80/500 in 7.1 configuration. Well, amazingly enough, it seems that these Axiom folks know what they are doing after all! Apart for a few DVD-Audio from one particular company, that setup is really, really good. And, for that special case, it is just really good. So, for one "really", I don't feel the need to good further.

My brother will be blown away by "his" new M3... once I decide to part with them.

A friend of mine will probably go with M22 (or W22) later this fall. Since he used MY setup to decide himself about Axiom, I think I can convince him to come here for some more experimentations.

That's all folks!

Thanks for taking the time to experiment and even more time to post your thoughts. It sounds like you had some fun, I know I did just reading postings.