Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Page 7 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Re: 2nd comparison QS8s vs. M22 as surrounds
davekro #257543 04/20/09 04:37 PM
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 7,786
axiomite
Offline
axiomite
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 7,786
 Quote:
Like when you ask a guitar lover

I have so far resisted that one. I only have 3. Randy Bachman has over 300. \:o

I didn't realize you had 3 subs until your post in the other thread. I am still surprised you are hearing a difference in the bass with the surrounds, but then, I'm not in your room listening.

Sigh, now I'm feeling sub deprived...


Fred

-------
Blujays1: Spending Fred's money one bottle at a time, no two... Oh crap!
Re: 2nd comparison QS8s vs. M22 as surrounds
davekro #257559 04/20/09 07:42 PM
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,361
connoisseur
Offline
connoisseur
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,361
 Originally Posted By: davekro
This morning I drill into the ceiling, mount my new brackets and V52's. crawl thru the ceiling to pull wire, then I am a listener, a tester no more (well for some time anyway ;\) )


Sounds good...just as soon as you post a REW graph for us to examine you go ahead and sit and try to enjoy (in spite of those ugly peaks and valleys at 100hz and 600hz \:D )


Panny 3000 PJ, 118" Carada, Denon 3300, PS3, Axiom QS8, PSB 5T, B&W sub, levitating speaker wire
Re: 2nd comparison QS8s vs. M22 as surrounds
Zimm #257562 04/20/09 08:35 PM
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 11,458
shareholder in the making
Offline
shareholder in the making
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 11,458
ACK! The baby is really smoking now!

Previously, I thought he just had the cigarette to try to look cool, but it's obvious now that he's inhaling! ACK, I say!


::::::: No disrespect to Axiom, but my favorite woofer is my yellow lab :::::::
Re: 2nd comparison QS8s vs. M22 as surrounds
MarkSJohnson #257565 04/20/09 08:57 PM
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 6,928
axiomite
Offline
axiomite
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 6,928
Baby Face Finster?


Half of communication is listening. You can't listen with your mouth.
Re: 2nd comparison QS8s vs. M22 as surrounds
Adrian #257566 04/20/09 09:09 PM
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,361
connoisseur
Offline
connoisseur
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,361
Yes, the boy inhales now! His name is ACK! actually, and while I call him a boy, he is actually 73, but started smoking young and stunted his growth. Like that Brad Pitt character without all the drama.


Panny 3000 PJ, 118" Carada, Denon 3300, PS3, Axiom QS8, PSB 5T, B&W sub, levitating speaker wire
Re: 2nd comparison QS8s vs. M22 as surrounds
Zimm #257567 04/20/09 09:19 PM
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 6,928
axiomite
Offline
axiomite
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 6,928
As long as it's not Ack Ack, then he would be a Martian.


Half of communication is listening. You can't listen with your mouth.
Re: 2nd comparison QS8s vs. M22 as surrounds
davekro #257693 04/22/09 12:39 AM
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 5,745
Likes: 17
axiomite
OP Offline
axiomite
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 5,745
Likes: 17
 Originally Posted By: davekro

I respectfully disagree with you (all \:\) ). If one pair of speakers sounds better through out the volume range (to ME), then why would you think that they would not also sound better producing whatever sound they are asked to produce in concert with all the other speakers in the system? Even more true if listening in 7 ch Stereo, with all speakers receiving the same signals (not sure if it's full range or crossed at the 1909's set levels). That's crazy talk! With movies, if one speaker's mids/high are too bright and the lows are all but non-existant to MY ears, why would that sound being mixed with the others get any better? To test the theory that these unliked sounds would be transformed by adding back the subs, as I said, we tested both pairs at all sound levels alone, w/subs and finally with all 7 channels. We both came toi the conclusion we preferred the bookshelves as backs and my in-wall (8" kevlar woofer, 1" alum dome tweeter, w/sound deadened in wall cavity), to the QS8's. I know it bucks common thinking, but I will follow my and my musician friends consensus opinion for our tastes in this particular room.

There is so much wrong with such an approach to these ideas and how to test them (hypothesis not theory), it would take me over a day to compose a proper rebuttal to these statements.

Last edited by chesseroo; 04/22/09 12:40 AM.

"Those who preach the myths of audio are ignorant of truth."
Re: 2nd comparison QS8s vs. M22 as surrounds
davekro #257694 04/22/09 12:56 AM
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 5,745
Likes: 17
axiomite
OP Offline
axiomite
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 5,745
Likes: 17
 Quote:


 Quote:
Angle at which the QSx are placed is not how they were designed. Normal, flat surface placement with options for height or distance front to back along the sides.
That's about it for optimizing location.
I agree. This is why the QS8's, TO ME, did not perform well out in mid air! Also, as fits your comment, I found changing from QS8's flat on wall w/'T' brackets to tilting them about 25º, their fullness dropped significantly.

You completely misunderstood my post.
A normal, flat surface placement does not mean against a vertical wall. It could also mean on a speaker stand, horizontal surface.
Flat, not tilted.
QSx speakers do not need a wall to sound good. You are taking the concept of bass reinforcement from close surfaces and far over emphasizing that actual effect with the QSx speaker.
 Quote:

 Quote:
A xover of 150Hz is ridiculously high unless you have main speakers the size of a baseball.

Exactly. The fact that Audyssey and the 1909 set the mid air hanging QS8s to 150Hz, says they sounded like very small speakers in that location. So how is having a 'very small' (sounding) speaker preferred over a fuller range speaker, even as 7.1 backs in HT?

You are assuming Audyssey is working correctly in this regard. Those receiver features have been known to select truly odd settings in even perfectly simple conditions.

 Quote:

 Quote:
Lastly, forget about the notion that because your neighbor is a drummer he has a special ability to better discern sound. It is a fallacy. If anything his hearing is shot from playing drums.

I always say, if you are going to make generalizations, you might as well make them glaring. Do you happen to know my friend?

Clearly you are a believer in your own ideas rather than science fact. If you so decide to read about what has been demonstrated under controlled conditions, you will understand that your hearing (unless impaired) is just as good as anyone else.
Musicians do not have a magical gift of hearing other than between 20Hz and 20khz like the rest of us, sorry to say. Given your last comment, that you believe your own ears anyway, why are you then listening to your friend's opinion believing his hearing is better?

My suggestion, stop making up hypotheses about why things are (leave that for real psychoacoustic scientists) and simply use your own hearing judgment to decide what you like and be done with it.


"Those who preach the myths of audio are ignorant of truth."
Page 7 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Moderated by  alan, Amie, Andrew, axiomadmin, Brent, Debbie, Ian, Jc 

Link Copied to Clipboard

Need Help Graphic

Forum Statistics
Forums16
Topics24,939
Posts442,452
Members15,615
Most Online2,082
Jan 22nd, 2020
Top Posters
Ken.C 18,044
pmbuko 16,441
SirQuack 13,840
CV 12,077
MarkSJohnson 11,458
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 233 guests, and 0 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newsletter Signup
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.4