Axiom Home Page Forums General Discussion Home Theater 2nd comparison QS8s vs. M22 as surrounds

Finally, after waiting a long month and having my finances get sorted out, i placed the order last week and the rest of the sound system arrived Thursday (QS8s, EP350, VP150), just in time before i had to send back the m22s i was using for trials against the m60s.
Once the QS8s arrived, i had the thought to try them against the m22s in the surround speaker positions. This would give me an idea of how the QSx quadpolar design may provide a different surround experience than the m22s direct radiating design.

Some quick background on my setup:
Onkyo DS797 receiver
Panasonic CV52 dvd
Ultralink 10ga wire all around, finished with soldered AMX banana plugs
Some test material included the likes of Patricia Barber, Holly Cole Trio, various choir and pipe organ and others (chek the posts on "Just for the fun of it"). The dvd movie used to test movie surround was U-571, chapter 13 during the "depth charged" scene.
U-571
Both myself and my fiance sat down to do the listening tests to several songs and the dvd scene in 3 DSP modes: Dolby Pro Logic II-Music, Dolby Pro Logic II- THX Cinema 5.1, and All Channel Surround.
Both the m22s and QS8s were placed in the same position, slightly behind and alongside the listening position and toed in about 20 degrees.

AMIE AND FORUM CO. THIS IS A LINK TO VARIOUS VIEWS OF MY BASEMENT SETUP. PLEASE DISREGARD THE MESS OF MY HOUSE AND MY WEBSITE (work in progress as always). Also take note of the VERY minor flaws that allowed me to pick up the QS8s and the VP150 through the Factory Outlet. To say it was a steal is an understatement!!
chesseroo

One of us sat and listened while the other person changed the DSPs around and muted and changed the banana plugs b/w the 2 speaker sets. Neither the VP150 nor the EP350 speakers were used in these tests so we could listen only to the 4 speaker surround setup. Many systems do not have centre channels or often the centre channel is the last item purchased for the system. We wanted to assess just the surround effect that is generated by the 4 primary speakers and without interference from heavy bass (hence the EP350 was not hooked up).

Here were the results:
My fiance picked out and preferred the QS8s 4 times out of 5. I picked out and preferred the QS8s 3 times out of 5.
In order to keep this review from getting too long, i will summarize what we thought about each:

M22s-music-all channel surround-too prominent in the rear, took away from mains but produced a totally enveloping sound
M22s-music-DPL II-slightly less prominent, still very enveloping
Overall m22s for music- position is critical, adjustments may be necessary with the receiver if the speaker positioning is limited in a room, but a very full and surrounding sound that can completely immerse the listener from all sides.

QS8-all channel surround- nice, even sound dispersion, instruments seemed more localized to the sides towards the front rather than directly from the speaker
QS8-DPL II- far more subtle surround sound, music very evenly dispersed and stage recordings sound superior (clapping sounds coming from the sides and back instead of just from the front or rear)
Overall QS8s for music- superb for stage and acoustical performances, nice addition to mains for additional effects but not as immersive as the m22 direct design

M22s-dvd-all channel surround- very strong sounds taking too much away from the mains, but all surround sounds are clear and concise which normally would be over shadowed by strong dialogue coming from the mains
M22s-dvd-DPL II Cinema- surround sounds still very strong but far less than the all channel DSP mode, repositioning the speakers or adjusting options with a good receiver should work well

QS8s-dvd-all channel surround and DPL II Cinema- both surround DSPs sounded excellent with the QS8s dispersing sound beautifully so we could not localize any single source for the sounds in the room

Overall performance for movies- we found that the QS8s simply dispersed sound ALOT differently yet in a way that helps to fool your ears into not knowing exactly where sounds are eminating from, but instead only the general direction. This to me is what i'm looking for in home theatre system. The illusion of sounds echoing around the listener depending on their location within the movie itself.
This is not to say that the m22s were not admirable performers. If you are looking for a larger sound or a more immersive music experience and have the space to tweak your speaker positions or have a receiver that can tweak speaker placement options, then the m22s (or another direct radiating model) is probably what you would prefer.
For me and my fiance though, the QS8s were what we were looking for and believe they are superior in the role of providing true "surround" sounds.
For Home Theatre, it is the QS8s.
For home Stereo, you can go either way depending on how you like to hear surround music, as immersive and full or as more subtle additional background effect to the mains.

Excellent job Chesseroo!! So I guess the QS8's stay!!

WOOHOO!

Somehow I just knew the QS8s would win out - am I the next Jean Dixon or Edgar Cayce? (nawww... I just believe that bipole/quadpole radiator designs are better for surround in a normal home environment)

ENJOY!!!! (lucky dog!)

Randyman

Nice review chesseroo (hey that rhymes )

Glad to hear you're happy with your QS8's. Although I have to say looking at the "couch panorama" picture that I'm not at all surprised with the results. It looks like from a seating position on the couch that the speakers were only a few feet away from you, which is definitely not going to be optimal for the M22's in particular. I wonder if the outcome would be the same if the speakers had been placed on the side walls 2-3 feet above ear-level. Then again if that's not how you're planning to place the speakers it's probably irrelevant. One other observation, about the M22's seeming too prominent. Did you level match all the speakers with an SPL meter? This could just be a matter of needing to calibrate the channel levels.

Regardless, I'm sure you'll be happy with the QS8's. Have you had a chance to evaluate the VP150 yet? I'll be interested to hear your opinion on it.

Fantastic review!!

I hear you on the calibration thing.
I did not specifically use a sound meter, i only used my ears for calibration.
However, within the review i noted several times that placement is really the issue with the m22s as surrounds. I simply did not have the room to move the m22s more than 5 feet away from my listening position (the right was actually 4 feet and the left was 5 feet as measured). Don't let the picture of the couch fool you, the darn thing is about 9 feet long.
I originally placed the m22s aiming directly at the listening position at those same distances and i found the strong surround effect to be even more prominent. The surround improved greatly when they were moved to behind the listening position and then toed in a bit.
So again, it is taking alot of tweaking to set up the sweet spot either physically or using the calibrations with the receiver which was not something i had to do with the QS8s. Keep in mind this has nothing to do with the quality of the sound from the m22s. The issue is with getting the right acoustical dynamics for my room sorted out.

I'm working on my opinion of the vp150 and the ep350. Unfortunately with my less than adequate placement of the vp150, i'm not too sure how easy it may be to evaluate.

Nice review. Thanks for the helpful information. There's nothing quite like real people doing real reviews. Beats the magazines any day.

b_man

Dude your basement is sweet! All you need is a big tv!

Picture of the M22s vs the QS8s link updated.

Where are the soup cans to support the QS8s?

I find your setup interesting. I planned on using M22's as surrounds (primarily listen to music). As I don't have any room behind me I was advised to place facing one another on side walls so they are directed over the middle of the couch. I wonder if I'd be better putting them at the back wall and toeing them in a bit. Based on where I'm seated one speaker will be about3 feet away from me and the other about 5. My processor can compensate for the distance. What do you think?

Once again, let your ears decide, if it sounds better toed in than straight over the couch then leave them toed in. It really is up to you at this point.

The setup i tried at our old place was limited in getting the M22s moved around too much. Mostly at the sides, where shown, but i did place with distances and toeing a bit. I never did put them directly behind the seating position since the 5.1 setup usually defaults to side surrounds, not rears. In a 6.1 and 7.1 setup, the rears are added.
As such, in your situation, it would make most sense to have the M22s to the side. I doubt you will need to do anything with toe in, unless you choose to place them more towards the rear of the seating area.
Definitely take your time to setup the distances and SPL calibration especially. If the surrounds are too loud, it will really detract from the subtle information they are supposed to present with the mains.
If you listen mostly to music, i think you will find their presentation very pleasant, though a bit more tweaky than plunking in some diffuse firing speakers like a QSx. Tweaking is half the fun.

I was about to say...they would sound even better with soup cans chess!

How about an EP350 firing downward on pucks?

I feel like throwing it a milk bone.

Woof.

I've already decided that my next pets will be Woofer and Tweeter. That would be cool if it was a dog and a bird.

Unfortunately, we'd likely get two dogs so one of them will have to endure name-calling on the playground and dog parks.

What were we talking about?

Interesting, interesting.

I've used my m22's as rear surrounds for almost a year now. I haven't quite been able to convince myself that QS8's would be that much of an improvement, but this post helps. I've got a couple hundred bucks worth of Axiom credit thanks to a successful demo session (Axiom rocks!), maybe it's time to cash it in.

It is just one opinion.
Depending on room and placement, your M22s may provide an equally good setup for surrounds.

Please explain

When you do an audition for some one, if that person buys Axiom and mentions your name you get a GC from Axiom for 5% of their total purchase.

Also, they need to keep them past the 30 day trial...'cmon though how many people return them. Well of course the upgraders

I can personally vouche for this program as well, it's great.

Chess,

Awesome! But I guess it doesn't count for beans because it wasn't blind .

Actually Mojo, it WAS blind, it wasn't instantaneous A/B.
The switcher didn't arrive on the scene until later reviews.
It was also limited in its # of listeners (only two whereas other reviews i've usually had three or sometimes four).

Until it is peer reviewed and published, 'reviews' are only opinions. Some reviews are just more controlled and hence credible than others by science standards.

Well, you can make it three listeners next week if you want .

You're coming to Winnipeg?
Oh my. We'll simply have to get together with Bren and then drop you off downtown at Portage and Main on the windiest corner in Canada in -20C just for kicks eh?

Only -20? you can do better than that. We do get that out here quite a bit and wind too, just not for as long as you have to endure it.

I had some friends that used to work Windy Corner.

I don't know how much time I'll have. Most of my time will be spent at Grace with my dad. But if I do get time, I'd love to meet.

Mo, if you do manage to get together with chess, be sure to have your demon SPL meter along for comparative testing.

That's a good idea.

I've been meaning to wrap some turns of current-carrying wire around it to see how it responds to magnetic fields. It's not too easy to do this since all the cords I have include the hot and return in one insulating sleeve.

If you have any ideas let me know.

Yes bring it along and we'll compare it with the enthusiast standard Radio Shack unit.

I forgot to pack it .

I have my new QS8s mounted on 8' stands to find the best position. I will be mounting them mid ceiling in the room. MOst of you know the loooong story and (too) many pics have been posted elsewhere. I finally decided to pull all banana plugs from my 1909 except for the 7.1 backs and test them on their own. I had concern when I finally ran Audyssey and the Denon 1909 set the x-over at 150Hz! ! That is disappointing. They are out in mid air (will be ceiling mounted) with back wall 11' away and side walls about 6' away. It seems to really dissipate the lows. I tried my (M2) sized Bic V52 book shelf speakers o the 8' stands. The V52s base was improved enough to be much preferred from what the Q's allowed to my listening pos. in my large open room. While the back sound stage was very much nicer than the DF V52's, the sound location of each speaker was not bothersome, but it was more from two locations, than a wall of sound behind.

W/ Qs up on stands (tilted at 27º), Dire Straights Money for Nothin' (remastered) was disappointing one minute in when the drums slowly come in, then hammer you. I listened from vol. level (on display of 1909) at -35, -30, -20 and -15 (very loud!). the drums with the Q's hanging out in the air were very thin to the point of sounding pretty bad. I plugged the subs in to see if that would make this a non-issue. The bass from the subs was nice, but the thin high pitched drums from the back Q's was still imposing itself onto the sound stage. The drums sounded harsh and still dominant even with the subs. Putting the Bic V52's back onto stands, the base w/o subs was noticeably improved. With the sub added, it sounded very good. Except that the two speaker locations were noticeable. The QS8' sound GREAT flush mounted for my sides. (I got 4 QS8's)

It is not an easy choice to make: Thin but with a good back sound stage that the subs don't 'fix', or two DF speakers with the localization that they come with. I should note that during this backs only test, Audyssey was run with the DF spkrs and x-over was set at 120Hz, not the 150Hz, the Q's would be set at.

My neighbor is a drummer. He will come over tomorrow morning to give a listen. I look forward to his more discerning ear for a second opinion.

Te V52's are a decent $75 speaker, but I wish I had ordered a pair of M2's to try for backs. I may order some new ones to see if I can get them in time to test with Q's before the 30 day deadline passes.

Does anyone have experience with having had decent DF speakers (M2's???) for 7.1 backs mounted mid ceiling with no reflective walls any where near? Some one who has also tried QS8's in this type of location would be great to hear from. My room is pretty large (31x23x 9'), so the Qs are being absorbed into the ethers back there. :o(

Dave, I haven't heard the M2s, but my feeling is that ANY small speaker in open space, without a wall to increase bass from the "boundary effect" is going to sound thin. Your older speakers might be putting out a little more bass than the QS8s, but ultimately, the sub is going to come into play below 120Hz or 100Hz with any small speaker hung in free air....

I think you're overthinking it a bit. I know you want to make the right decision with the rear speakers, but listening to them by themselves without all the rest of the speakers running is not really how the system will work in the real world.

Dave. If I understand correctly you are listening to the surrounds/rears by themselves. Why?? You are supposed to listen to the music not the speakers or just one component of the music.

Also, if you find the bass thin, why do you continue to use the Audissey settings?

Listen to all the speakers with the surrounds/rears crossed much lower.

Last. The surrounds are there to add depth to music and give it an immersive sound, not to add meat/oompf/kick to your bass. If you have an issue with the bass, you should be taking issue with your mains.

Mark and Fred have nailed it on all counts.

Surrounds are not for presenting bass. If you want bass from surrounds, go to a full range speaker.

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.

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

And yes, if you listen to the surrounds on their own, it does sound weird.

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 recommend you try some reading from Dr. Toole's book. It will clarify many questions if you are concerned about so many small details that may or may not mean anything at all.

Audyssey set my 5.1 system with some odd crossovers.

Aud settings: Fronts.....Large.....40hz

Centre.....Small.....60hz

Surrounds..Small.....120hz

I have since changed these settings to "Small" all around with the Fronts crossed at 60hz and the Centre and Surrounds at 80hz which to my ear, sounds better. I also boosted the centre by a couple of Db's as well as the R Surround. As some have noted on other threads, Audyssey will get you in the ballpark, but then you might want to make some further adjustments. Also I agree with other posts here, that surrounds are more there for ambient sound as opposed to the mains.

Adrian, per Audyssey, you don't want to reduce the crossover settings that Audyssey finds, it is ok to increase a value. Davekpro's Audyssey set is side Q's to 90hz, and rears to 150hz, because the rears had no wall behind them and didn't get any reinforcement like the side surrounds which were wall mounted.

Per Audyssey:

"Raising the crossover frequency from the calibrated setting does not affect the channel correction implemented by Audyssey.
Lowering the crossover frequency from the calibrated setting is not recommended. Audyssey will not provide correction to the satellite speakers lower than the frequency it measures as the -3 dB point.

It seems to me that there is a trade off here. Either you have Audyssey auto-eq the full range of the surrounds, or you get lower extension on the surrounds.

Does it really make that much difference to the sound field to not EQ from 150Hz down to the crossover point on your surrounds?

Given Dave's issues with bass and the surrounds is it worth it to try the lower crossover to see how it sounds?

Will moose and squirrel...

He can try it, however, the subwoofer MultEQ filters have 8x higher resolution than the satellite channels, so room correction in the bass (where it is most needed) will be much better.

Audyssey will not provide correction to the satellite speakers lower than the frequency Audyssey measures as the -3 dB point, so if he changes it lower, your defeating the whole purpose of having Audyssey engaged, might as well not use it then.

Maybe thats not such a bad idea??

It seems to mee Audyssey is detecting room suckout not the -3db point of the speaker. In a way, its making a bad thing (a room mode reducing frequencies between the real -3db point and 150Hz) and making it worse. Too bad you can't manually set the -3db point.

Edit: I'm glad I don't have the choice of Audyssey on my receiver. This stuff can be confusing enough as it is.

I was thinking the same thing as Fred, just dump Audyssey and try it with a 80hz XO for the rears, sides and center and 60hz for the mains and see how it sounds.

I am thinking the M2s wouldn't be any better than the QS's, they have a high roll off point as well according to their graph. Maybe a set of M3's with that upper bass hump/depressed mid graph would be the better choice for rear duty in that large of a room, other than a second sub placed behind the listener to even out the bass response through out the room which really appears to be the main issue.

I also remember when I first got my surrounds I really wanted to hear them. I paid for them dammit! Once I settled in and got used to the whole 5.1 things, the surrounds started to sound better when they were properly level matched.

*snicker*

Just wait till you have kids CV, then you will really know what rear duty is.

Good thing I'm sterile with no prospects!

Where to go with a setup like that...

I can think of only four places...

Heaven, Hell, Earth, and...?

Um, "REAR" duty.
I'll let you figure out the fourth option.

Ha ha, I understood the "thrust" of what you were saying. I thought I'd try to derail you, but the train is still a-comin'!

I can hear those trains quite clearly in my QS8 surround speakers!

I compared the QS8's to the V52 bookshelf speakers with the 1909 in 7 ch. stereo with all other speakers unplugged from AVR. I don't know if 7 ch stereo would apply it's 110Hz x-over or not, but full range vs. 110Hz and up, both pairs got the exact same freq. input. Hearing specifically how each pair of speakers sounded like without the distraction of all the other speakers, I believe to be the only way for me to objectively compare how each performed to my taste.

I ran each pair at 1909 vol. of -30, -20, -15, -10, -5 and we both wrote down our impressions of how each's SQ changed as the volume increased. Th RS SPL meter clocked them both similar in actual dB's.

The bookshelf speakers sounded smoother (warmer). They were more localized as to location, but sounded better at the higher volumes down to -10. The Qs8's were lacking bass by comparison, not unexpected due to much smaller cabinet volume. The Q's had a wider sound stage. In the end, I much preferred the V52's sound. We then did the same test with the subs plugged in, then with all the 7 channels plugged in. In my large room, I preferred the bookshelves as backs. I will order a pair of M2's to try out, as I believe their SQ would be better than the V52's. I also put back my (8" woofer) in-wall speakers, to independently as well as w/sub and w/all speakers. For my 23' wide room, I preferred their ability to project better as well as liking their SQ through all the volume levels. It was very good to have a musicians ears to hear from and compare notes/preferences at each stage/speaker. Very nice to get away from comparing specs, to comparing what I liked best in my room.

The M80'/VP150 up front are GREAT. I love them.

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.

Tomorrow I hope to string the wires thru the attic before it gets too hot. Mount the new DIY brackets and get the wiring down the wall to the AVR.

I will be sort of doing that with the bookshelf speaker rated for down to 60-70Hz

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.


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?

??? before, all my speakers were crossed at 80Hz or below by Audyssey and the 1909. The most prevalent x-over recommendations, by far, has been to cross all speakers at 80Hz and the Sub at 80Hz too. Besides sounding better to me, it seems to fit with most recommendations.


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

If theory and my ears disagree, I'm now deciding on going with my ears. That is the measuring stick that ultimately matters, well to me anyway!

Now Mark, don't go taking Charles' comment on baring your rear again! (It was so white it had never seen a single ray of sun, even thru a window! )

You can't believe how tempted I was, but showing the same photo again and again, I risk overexposure of my rears.

In the end (I'm sorry!), I don't think there's a person here who doesn't agree that you should use what you prefer...Axiom or not. It's your system, in your room, and what sounds best to you is ALL that matters.

I know that in MY case (I won't speak for others), I'm just concerned that a person can stress out so much in tweaking their system that they forget how to enjoy it, and I don't want to see that happen to you. I know the system is still pretty new to you, but I see more posts about crossovers and positioning than I do in the "What Movie are you watching tonight" thread.

I joke about my room sucking but seriously, when I first posted graphs here, women hid their children, grown men were found in a fetal position under tables, and distant dogs howled. Someone, somewhere, felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices cried out in terror....

For awhile, I was all about tweaking because I was unhappy that my square room gave me so many peaks and nulls. After a week or so, though, I realized that the system still sounded good...great even... and was far, far better than what I had before. There was no way I was going to improve it without doing serious treatments. So I walked away, and haven't metered the system yet. Now, I don't even feel the desire to meter it, though if I'm in a room where lots of other people are metering, I'm tempted to take one little reading myself. Then I remember my 12 steps and stop myself.

Now, I just blissfully enjoy my system without worrying about tweaking the response.

No, you're not in that kind of danger yet. But another week of this, and some murmurs on an intervention might be heard among your friends' PMs.

Oh, and I think if you want the Axiom sound in the rear (snicker), you should try M22s instead of M2s, as the M2s probably won't offer any more bass than the QS8s!

+1 on the first. I have also ht the serious treatments wall regarding bass in my concrete box (at least its not square).

I have no doubt that ear break-in occurs and that it take a fair amount of time. Over the first 6 months or so what sounded good to me changed considerably. At some point, the surrounds sounded better level matched where I couldn't 'hear' them. I went from running the sub 10+db hot to maybe 2db hot. I could start to recognize instruments and music where I was getting too much reflection from my room (yes Virginia the M80s can be bright on some material in a higly reflective room).

As much as I talk about tweeking (I'm a propeller head at heart) I spend far more time listening and only tweek after I completely understand what I am tweeking.

Oh, and you need at least 6 subs.

Mark,
You may already feel the disturbance in The Force quelling as we speak. After doing extensive listening tests with someone who's audio ear I trust, it was much more helpful to share my perceptions with him, get his opinion and balance his comments with my perceptions. In the past, the only comparison I was making was my perceptions (which I was pretty confused about), to specs and measurements, which I do not fully understand anyway. Now I feel good about my choice for the sides and backs in my system because of the way they sound (to me), not because of how other feel about speakers x or y. I am ecstatic over the M80's (sorry squirrel) and VP150 in the front.

Since I prefer my Bic America V52's (M2 size w/ 5 1/4" woofer, 1/2" dome tweeter) over the Q's in the mid air back back position, I thought the same sized but probably higher SQ M2 might bring a slight SQ improvement. Worth testing anyway. I did seriously consider the M22's because I know they would be a significant SQ improvement (in that mid air application) than the Q. But having a 20" tall BS speaker hanging down from the ceiling in the middle of our great room, did not appeal to us. We care choosing to compromise with the smaller (M2 sized) BS.

Thinking about your comments, for now, I think I will not bring in the M2's. Since I like the sound the way it is, I will enjoy it this way for some time. As you all say, it is time to "step away from the dB meter and tape measure" and start enjoying music an movies. The lessons are learned when the student is ready. I am now ready!

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 )

The patience of the intervention crew has been appreciated.













Mark, and one day, you'll stop bringing up the 'rear'...

Fred, I am with you there. Too much is never enough! Like when you ask a guitar lover or (any) fisherman how many guitars or fishing poles is enough, you get the same answer: "One more!"

I believe subs may fall into this category. ;o) I may keep my eye out for a second used Servo 15 sub an retire one or both of the 'filler' KLH's. But that is not a near term thought, because I am into enjoying now. ( for both my and my wife's mental health. )

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

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...

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 )

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!

Baby Face Finster?

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.

As long as it's not Ack Ack, then he would be a Martian.

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.

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.

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.


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.