Axiom Home Page Forums General Discussion Advice from Axiom Owners SQ8 Question?

I just order a pair of SQ8's from the outlet store. I am replacing some older JBL Sat 20's, that I use for surrounds in a 5.1 setup. The JBL's are mounted on the rear wall, and I plan on mounting the SQ8's on the rear wall. I can't do sides, due to my room layout. My question is: Would about 5 to 6 feet apart, and about half way in between ear level & the ceiling be ok. By doing it this way, they will be located just over the top of the ends of the couch. Any help/info would be appreciated.


I went with the Axiom's due to having Paradigm Studio 60's V2 & matching center. I have had them quite a while, and love them. The matching surrounds for them are around $1200 a pair. More than I am willing to part with. Plus the new one's would not be a perfect match with my Version 2's anyway. I have heard that the Axiom's match up well with the Paradigms.

New owner to be. The wait is killing me.

Thanks

The Qs8's, not SQ8's , are very fogiving. Normally, you want them at least 2ft or higher above ear level when seated. Mine are 7ft off the ground.

The Paradigms Studio's are very similar to the m60's and m80's, so the Q's should blend nicely.

How wide is your back wall? 6ft spread should work, but wider might work better.

It'll be great.

One side of the wall is wider, but the couch goes about 2 ft from the corner. So the only way to widen them would be to put one further away from the end of the couch, than the other one. So the couch would not be in the middle of the rear sound stage.

What the drunk squirrel said.

Thanks, I thought it sounded ok with the JBL's, and they are at least 10 to 12 years old. They also have a fairly small range. The Qs8's should sound a lot better. Now back to reading threads and waiting.

Thanks again

What's the room layout that prevents you from using the side walls? Is it because as you stated later that the couch isn't centered left-to-right in the room?

As everyone else has said the QS8s will be fine on the rear. The only thing I was thinking is if you could find a way to put them on the side you could keep your current speakers to make a 7.1 system. That is what I've done, of course now that I've heard the QS8s I'm in more of a hurry to replace my 15 year old Sonys on the rear with something Axiom.

As the others have said, on the rear wall as you described will work fine.

I am Bi-Amping my fronts, and I would have to stop doing that to be able to do 7.1. The right side has a wall, the left is has an opening to where my computer desk is. If I put something on a stand, it just wouldn't look right. I have thought about what you have said. I someday might get another pair of Qs8's and try and hang them from the ceiling. My actual HT area including the connecting room is only about 1900 Cubic Ft. For now I think this is all I can do.

Since the beginning of 08, I have gotten a Denon 3808ci, PS3, Samsung 50PNA550 Plasma, Outlaw LFM-1 Compact, ordered an ED A2-300, and now the Qs8's. I think my wife has been more than accommodating. God love her she really has been good with most of this. It took me years of looking with her before I could get my Paradigm fronts, & center. I happen to go in when the new models were coming out, and I got the floor models in the box with new warranty for about half price.

Thanks for the suggestion.

How are you bi-amping? If you're connecting two sets of wires to two different outputs on the same receiver or same amp, then it's completely useless.

I have a Denon 3808ci. The Zone 2 terminals on this amp are configurable to be Zone 2, Rear Surrounds, or Bi-Amping. You connect a set of wires from the Zone 2 terminals, to the second set of terminals on the speakers, then you configure them as Bi-Amp. According to where I bought it, and to Denon it is supposed to help make them sound a little smother/fuller. Now just adding a second set of wires is Bi-wiring, and that is of course a completely different thing. But the way I have it is supposed to make a difference. Night and day, no, but I feel better about it.

Marketing says it's supposed to make a difference. I suspect 7.1 would make more of a difference.

...to two different outputs on the same receiver or same amp with a single, common power supply... (Which is how nearly every receiver is designed.)

To expand upon what he's saying. The amp in the receiver is rated for x Watts into n channels. That isn't so much because of the design of the output stage of the amps as it is the power available in the power supply.

Running the full frequency output of one channel to both the high and low range of a speaker will provide the same amount (actually for most content, more) of power to the speaker as pushing two channels with full frequency content into a split, passive cross-over network of the same speaker (and thus turning the unplayed part of the content to heat).

The only way a single amp/power supply can gain anything by bi-amping is to remove the cross-overs from the speaker and perform active crossing-over before the signal is amplified.

Don't believe us? Get an SPL meter, play a passage a good volume level, where you think you'd be getting a benefit from having two amps. Record the peak value. Now remove the bi-amping, don't touch the position on the volume control, and play the same passage again. If the bi-amping was doubling your power you should lose 10 dB. You won't. You shouldn't lose anything it may actually end up a little louder--if you were being current limited by running the same content through twice as many amps.

Actually if I remove the Bi-amping, I will loose all the base from Fronts. You remove the bridging bars from the back of the speakers. Also by your logic you would gain nothing by adding additional speakers, since they all go back to the same amp, I mean if you are talking volume, and not definition. Maybe I am misunderstanding what you are saying.

This is from Denon's FAQ's
Bi-amping and bi-wiring are different. But they’re often confused because both bi-amped and bi-wired systems have two sets of speaker cables running from amplifier(s) to a speaker. However, it’s what happens to the audio signal before it gets sent to the speaker that really distinguishes these two techniques. The only way we can answer your question is to dive into the details. So, here they are
Traditionally speaking, bi-amping means the use of two separate amplifier channels connected directly (no passive crossover in the signal path at all!) to individual loudspeaker drivers optimized to reproduce a particular frequency range. For example, one amplifier channel would be connected directly to a tweeter for high frequency reproduction, another to a woofer for bass reproduction.
Bi-amping requires an electronic crossover to divide the wide range audio signal from a preamplifier before that signal ever gets to the amplifiers. The advantages of traditional bi-amping are significant. Damping factor (a measure of the amplifier’s ability to control the back-and-forth motion of the driver) increases, intermodulation distortion goes down, and effective amplifier power is increased dramatically.

Thing is, you're not doing traditional bi-amping, as they call it, since removing the bars from the back of the speakers does not remove the internal passive crossover. So while their explanation is correct, it's not what their receivers do.

But hey, it hurts nothing to do it the way you do, other than the lack of 7.1.

...and I meant when disabling the bi-amping to replace the bars.

[quote=ClubNeonIf the bi-amping was doubling your power you should lose 10 dB.[/quote]
Just a quick note to say that halving/doubling the power will result in a ~3dB change, not 10dB.

Just trying to learn, so hang with me. My speaker manual says how to Bi-amp, and how to Bi-wire both, and my Studio 60's can be Bi-amped according to the manual. I would agree that it would not make any real difference if I was just running a second set of wires. I am pretty sure that when you configure the Denon for Bi-amp, it only sends the low freq stuff out of those speaker terminals.

I guess if you are correct, then it is just a useless function they have built into this receiver.

Just a quick note to say that halving/doubling the power will result in a ~3dB change, not 10dB. [/quote]

I am not sure that is correct either. Every 3 db is double the volume correct? But as you go up it takes more power to increase another 3db. So it takes a lot more power to go from 75db to 78db than it does from 6 db to 9db. Once again maybe I don't understand, but that was the way it was always explained to me.

Smitty, does the manual specify which terminal to hook which output to? If not, then it's not doing any active crossovering. (No, that's not a word...) Also, if there's no way to specify the bi-amp crossover, it's probably not doing it, and if it is, it's not doing it well.

I'd advise you swap terminals, but that might or might not prove anything. I don't think it would be detrimental to the speakers (since the internal, passive crossover network is still working)

Smitty, the speakers don't have to be exactly symetrical from the seating location, that is why you setup the distance a dB levels for each speaker in the receiver. My left/right Qs8's are about 2ft difference in distance from me, my rears are about the same.

Smitty, the Axioms also have the clip/bar to remove if you want to do bi-amping. However, what your doing is not true biamping.

You would be better off to put the clip back in and only run one set of wires to your mains, you won't lose any bass unless you remove the clip.

I like crossovering (it should be a word). No I don't think the manual says which set of speaker terminals to hook to which output on the receiver. So it probably isn't doing anything.

I still will have to wait to go for a 7.1 system. The area I am filling for my HT is only around 900 cubic ft, not including the adjoining area. So I am not sure that having a 7.1 would envelope me that much more. My HT sitting area is only:
H x W x D 7.5 x 8 x 4.

If the receiver is performing cross-over duty electronically, then you are stacking cross-overs by still having them inside of the speaker. Also, cross-over design by the speaker maker is a little more than a frequency and a slope, so even if the cross-overs were removed from the speakers getting the same voicing by going with an electronic cross-over in the receiver could be a little difficult.

This blurb puts it better than I can: http://www.audioholics.com/education/fre...ing-vs-biwiring And the linked article at the end goes into waaay more details, and does present come cases where bi-amping works.

It's not a useless feature, it gets adds a bullet-point to the feature list that all the other receiver makers have too. (Where's the sarcastic mark?) Really though, there's truth to that. I think it came about because people were asking for it, and if the receiver is going to get two zones anyway, might at as well add "Bi-Amping" to the list, as it is just a special case of a B-zone. It's like the 300+ Surround Effect Modes that receivers were growing. No real use for them, but since everyone else had that feature...

Thanks, I will check out that link.

A 3db increase is just barely noticeable by human ears. Plus 10 DB is perceived as double. It takes twice the power for each 3db increase.

Like everyone has already said, PASSIVE bi-amping (that's what you are doing) is pointless. Remember the marketing folks want to sell you stuff, so they put in the 'buzzwords' of the day. Kinda like going to Walmart and seeing the huge adverts for watts (more is not always better).

I don't think a 3dB increase is double the perceived volume. Doubling the power from say 50 to 100watts gives you a 3dB gain, as Dewd said, hardly noticable.

I knew that once I said that about db's that something wasn't correct. I tried looking it up on Google, but I ended up with formulas.

Well by that article, I am receiving little to no perceivable difference. Thanks for the help. I probably will go 7.1 sometime, just not in the plan for now. And when I do my rears will be in the correct location. I will just have to mount the sides, and pull speaker wires for them. Then more the wires from my surrounds to the rear terminals. "My Brain Hurts"

Time to go watch a mind numbing Blu-ray.

Thanks again for the explanations.

I think 7.1 is massively over-rated, especially in smaller rooms.

I was definitely wrong with my 10 dB number. Mapping Watts to dBs is difficult because one scale is linear and the other logarithmic.

But the rest of my point stands.

I think 7.1 improves the cohesiveness of the surround sound-field in any size room. It isn't so much about distances as it is angles.

Smitty, your QS8s, even when mounted on the back wall, are still side surrounds in a 5.1 setup. They should therefore be separated as widely as possible, even by varying distances, which can be compensated for by correct level calibration.

As has been discussed, actual biamping can't be accomplished with a Denon or any other receivers which have such a "feature", so yes, it's essentially meaningless marketing. There's only one main power supply section in a receiver and the output transistors in the several channels operate as valves to meter that limited supply out to the connected speakers as needed. The transistors have no power of their own and simply funneling the power to a speaker with two sets of output transistors(one previously unused for back surrounds)instead of one can't double the power, as some imagine, or increase it by any amount.

Thanks again for the info. I will probably mount them at the couch ends for now, and then add the side surrounds later. That way I won't have to move the one, and make another hole in the wall. I am really looking forward to hearing the Q's.

I will probably remove the Bi-amping cables once I receive the Q's. I have to recalibrate everything anyway.

I am sure that I will have more questions once I get them hooked up, so thanks again for the help guys.

Trying to wait patiently, but not succeeding too well.

Patience is overrated. Unless you're a doctor and can't spell.

Well I received my QS8's on Wednesday 3/18. I have them mounted, and calibrated now. They definitely have a fuller range than my JBL's did. I think that gives them a more natural sound. I also think that they give a fuller surround sound experience. I am very pleased with this purchase. Also adding the ED A2-300 as a second sub really helped fill out my system. Went to the movies with my wife on Friday. She said that the sound for the movie wasn't that good. I told that what I have at home is better than what the theater has, and that she was just use to watching movies there.

Thanks for all the help. Here is a link to some pics of my HT.

My HT Gallery

Really nice system you have Smitty!!

I've seen external tweeters before but I've never seen an external top mounted woofer before

Vey nice set up, those mains are very close to the side walls, I wonder how much better it could sound if you were able to move them a little away, I realize you have no option, just wondering aloud.

Tom,
7.1 makes a huge difference if you adjust the listener properly. Add 12 dB (dark Beer) to the listener (in quick succession) and 7.1 is perceived as a huge improvement in feeling enveloped by sounds, and visuals too actually, because the fr!@@!n room is spinning. Best to do this test in a friends HT as there is sometimes an adverse 'output effect' on the adjusted listener. The friend is also usually confused because during the listener 'output effect' he calls the friend by different names, such as,
Raaaalph, Haaaaaank, Huuuuugh! Listener may even get religion... OH GOD!!!

But Tom, this is something you really need to experience for yourself. Or, even better, let Ken be the 'adjusted listener' when he comes up there to visit. (cover the seats and spread a few drop clothes first though).

Oh, hell. I hear Adrian coming, I've got to scoot.

PS. I hope it is not dinner time where you are.