Axiom Home Page Forums General Discussion Stereo Move Up From My Axioms In 2.1 Set-up

I do most of my music listening in the smallest room of my 3-bedroom house where I have an L-desk with my MacBook pumping out i-tunes.

This room is 8x9x10 with the door permanently open.

I currently have a 2.1 system that consists of two Algonquins facing me, each 4ft. from my ear, at desk level.

I have a DefTech Super Cube 2 positioned in the corner behind my right shoulder, 8" above desk level, about 4' away.

The system is powered by a Nikko Alpha130 through a Rotel stereo control amp RC-970BX.

I am seeking to broaden my sound stage by moving up from my 2-way Axiom Algonquin bookshelves into a 3 or 4-way speaker.

I've looked at B&W, Mirage, Paradigm, SVS, Polk, Dali, and a few other companies speakers and have not found a "more than 2-way" speaker at the right price level for me. (3k max)

I recently stumbled upon the JBL SC2 centers [http://jbl.com/home/products/product_detail.aspx?prod=LC2&Language=ENG&Country=US&Region=USA&cat=CCS&ser=SLS] and I'm finally thinking this might be my "buy" moment.

(Just search JBL SC2 if my linkis denied.)

However, I've found it wise to expose my purchase thoughts to forum scrutiny prior to hitting the "complete sale" button.

The JBL SC2's are available for under $800 (including shipping) on Amazon.

So my question to you critical Axiom owners/enthusiasts is: do you think I will realize $800 worth of improvement with two of these JBL centers over my Algonquins?

And- is it wise to use two centers as the "2" in a 2.1 set-up?

PS. My Algonquins will not be wasted as I intend to use then as "6&7" to make my 5.1 HT into a 7.1 HT.

PS.S. I'm very pleased with my Algonquins in this set-up but am seeking the ultimate in my price range.

ANY input/critique on this matter will be appreciated!!!

Hi Randall,

I think your basic premise is flawed; I do not believe that moving to a 3- or 4-way speaker will necessarily "broaden the soundstage".

I'd be very surprised if the imaging of ANY horizontally-oriented pair of speakers approaches what you currently enjoy.

I don't think that those JBL's will necessarily sound "better" than the Algonquins.

Since you are listening virtually near-field, I'm not sure that moving to any different pair of speakers is going to make more of a difference than simply playing around with speaker placement.

Sorry to be a buzzkill, but if you're not happy with your existing setup, I don't think the JBL solution you've outlined is going to make "the difference". M22's might be the ticket. Or - if you are looking for a more diffuse sound - you could check into some Mirage Omnisats or perhaps something from Def Tech.

Honestly, I'd buy a pair of superior headphones rather than new speakers for the space you've described.

Very good advice.

Randy, welcome. My thought is that the way to go about broadening the soundstage in your small room doesn't relate to multi-way speakers, but rather to go to a 4.1 setup with very wide dispersion side surround speakers such as the QS4s. From experience with one of my rooms that's barely larger than yours I can verify that the surround effect works well even in small rooms. Place the QS4s as far to the side as possible and maybe a foot or two behind your listening position. Of course this also requires using an HT receiver, but many excellent ones are available at quite low cost. Applying DPLII to 2-channel material allows full use of the surrounds.

Thank you all for your responses!

After re-reading my post I see I incorrectly referred to the JBL's as "SC2's" when I actually meant LC2's. Thank you all for knowing what I meant.

Ttuttle:
No need to apologize for the "buzzkill." Skulking around with a buzz is no way to go thru life.

On "Soundstage:" I sometimes throw around terms a bit loosely- but I figured the LC2's having a Freq. Resp. down to 50Hz compared to 60 for the Algos and would reach down to the sub better.

Also, figured the LC2 having 3/4", 1", 4" and 6" drivers would cover more acoustic ground than just the 1" and 6.5" on the Algos.

I thought these two factors would result in a broader soundstage.
Perhaps I need more education on the concept of and factors effecting "soundstage." Is the X-over the bigger factor?

On the M22's: How would the two 5.25" woofers compare to the single 6.5" on the Algo's. The tweeter appears to be the same driver.

On Speaker Placement: The JBL's come with wall mounts and this was a factor I was considering. Perhaps just mounting the Algo's in a down firing position high on the walls would be a significant improvement. This would put them 6' away instead of 4'.

On "diffuse sound:" What technical spec. (drivers, Freq.Resp., SPL, X-over, enclosure) of the Mirage/DefTech's ensures more diffuse sound? The Mythos One ST's were recently on sale and, while a little tall for my space, I thought they would be a big step up.

On head phones: I understand your point here but I don't like the way head phones make me feel "cut off" from the rest of the world. With speakers, even at a pretty high level, I can still hear knocking on my door or cars honking out front or my cat scratching at the window. I also move around a lot and like that I can still hear my music from pretty much anywhere in my small, one story house.

Finally, I'm a big fan of B.F. quotes. Is that "beer" one really Ben? ...not really surprised ...gotta love Ben!

Thanks again for taking the time to share your expertise with a novice.

I think what folks are saying is that you are too close to your speakers for them to integrate well to give you a convincing soundstage. Changing speakers or speaker configurations won't solve the distance problem.

Listen to Johnk. He's about the smartest guy on HT that I have 'met'. I think he is saying that the difuse sound of qs series speakers placed as far from you as possible will do more to integrate with the sound from your existing speakers to create that sound stage you are looking for.

JohnK: Thank you for your reply!

I am intrigued by the thought of stepping up to 4.1.

I find stereo listening with music to be superior to full surround.

Running stereo through 4.1 is a whole new track I hadn't considered and my mind is racing with the possibilities.

As you said, this would require that I abandon my Nikko and Rotel stereo "engine," which I have no alternate use for, so it's really a complete "smash" on my existing set-up.

I'm not sure if I'm ready for that but thanks because it's another reason to perhaps stand pat until I am ready for a true "difference maker" of a change.

Hey Randall,

After JohnK's post, I was embarrassed that I didn't also suggest adding more speakers to provide a more enveloping environment. It seems like that's what you're after. While I understand your fondness for the Nikko amp (and the purity of 2 channel listening), in that space, going to a surround-capable receiver and a 4.1 setup might be the quickest, cheapest and most effective solution.



I doubt it would make a difference. Your sub is certainly capable of playing up to 60Hz. In addition, without having access to the IN-ROOM response curves, I'd hesitate to place too much emphasis on a relatively small discrepancy like that.

.

I'm just not convinced that More Drivers = Better Sound. There are many purists who swear by 2-way designs (and many expensive speakers that embody that principle). I'd contend that the overall design, including crossover, drivers, enclosure, etc. is much more important than simply the number of transducers.



No idea. Might not make a huge difference to you. It would depend a lot on placement. I believe the tweeter IS the same.



Only one way to find out for sure... I don't know that "high on the wall" is necessarily good, but experimenting with the placement in your listening environment could bring you some revelations.



I'm not sure how you would measure it, but I was talking about the design principle. Both of the companies I mentioned have models that are designed to convey both direct and reflected sound to the listener in some kind of coherent way. I have a pair of the Omnisats at work and I like them very much, but I doubt they are as satisfying as the M3/Algonquins. You were talking about "soundstage", so I just wanted to point out that not all speakers are "a bunch of drivers on the front of a box firing in one direction". Some people still really like the effect of Bose 901's.



I'm with you. You have to balance audio fidelity with ergonomics.



To the best of my knowledge, yes. It takes genius to include beer in a theologically affirming statement.

Have fun. Enjoy the music.

Not that it matters but a GOOD set of open headphones does not cut you off from what's around you. You can still hear the phone ring the dog bark or the wife yelling at you You just have to try a GOOD set to really be able to appreciate just how good they can sound.

WID:

I hate those "earbud" things that came with my ipod.

I purchased a pair of $15 open ear JVC headphones with behind the ear holders that actually stay on when I'm running, jumping rope, or hitting the heavy bag.

I'm very pleased with the purchase; being that they were very cheap, always stay on, and sound pretty good to. However, I don't have much basis for comparison.

The Apple store has a pair of Bang &O's that are like $150. (that seems excessive)

Is there really a significant difference in headphones that justifies this type of cost?

If one was interested in getting a "top of the line" headphone are there some that you have experience with and/or suggest?