Axiom Home Page Forums General Discussion Stereo So NOW I'm a real Axiom owner...

And the more I live with the VP100, the more I like it. I've changed my center channel amplification from independent stereo power amps to the built-in wimpy-amps of a HK AVR. Despite the drop in available power, the centers (and surrounds) continue to provide undiminished pleasure.

It bears repeating that I don't listen loudly on movies, and my room is only moderately large. Therefore, the amps and speakers are taxed far less than they'd be were the venue & preferences otherwise.

In summary, the VP100 is one of the best choices I've made in many decades of audio. It does what it is supposed to, without any fuss or bother, and does so regardless of the modesty of the components feeding it. And besides, it looks nice (real wood finish), and it is modestly enough sized to not overwhelm the front equipment racks.

For anyone wondering if the modest VP100 will be sufficient for their HT needs, allow me to cast my vote in the "YES!" column. Axiom has made intelligent design compromises to the VP100's design that make it one of their best values, IMHO.

Boomzilla

Boom did you confirm, how far do you sit from the VP100?
I had (still do technically) a nice sounding center but needed more power handling once we started sitting further back. That speaker has a sweet spot about 8' from it.
Just curious...

The room is 15 feet wide. The couch puts me about two feet from the back wall, and the VP100 sits about two feet from the front. So I'm about 11 feet from the speaker.

Despite that, I don't listen at very loud levels, so the speaker sounds fine. I've currently got it hooked up to a HK AVR, but haven't tried the setup yet.

The WAF is great on this thing - it isn't huge & looks elegant. I may just have to break down & buy some Axiom surrounds...

And once again, I must beg some advice from the experts here on the Axiom boards:

My current setup will be Axiom M80s (ver. 3.5 - new tweeters, but older mid & bass drivers) with a VP-100 (ver. 4) for my center. Amplification is Emotiva XPA-1L mono blocks for the M80s and part of an Emotiva XPA-3 for the center & surrounds.

Due to the nature of my (dual purpose) listening/audio/movie room, my "surrounds" will be hard in the back corners, and actually to the SIDES of the listeners, not behind them. On the plus side, the rear "corners" actually aren't. One side has an open hallway door on the back wall of the room and the other side has an open stairwell to the second floor on the back wall. This means that the speakers see only two pi placement, not four.

I'm currently using PSB XB4 speakers as "rear" surrounds. My Oppo BDP-105 has these set to "small" mode and all bass below 80 Hz. is sent to the subwoofer.

Now to the question: Do I actually need Axiom surround speakers? If so, which models go the best with my current system? How well will the Axiom surrounds work with the placement limitations?

Thanks - Boomzilla

The placement of the speakers sounds to be in the correct place. They should be to the sides and slightly behind of your seating position.

In a very well mixed 5.1 track, the directionality of the PSB speakers will not be noticed. Personally i found myself that I there are movies that I enjoyed where the ambient effect was not so ambient because the direct sound of one of my surround speakers did not match the sound that it was portraying. Did it ruin the movie? No.

The QS speakers by their design fire non direct. They send the sound out in a larger pattern and you tend to hear it as an 'all around you' type of sound. This is how the movies were like in the pre ATMOS sound system days.

An example.. one of my favourite movies was Big Trouble where they are at an airport and a large 747 flies overhead. If I am sitting in the left hand seat with directional speakers, the plane that should be directly overhead isn't because the sound from the left hand speaker is louder than the sound coming out of the right as your proximity to the speaker. However with the QS speakers, the sound is like the whole room and as the plane comes overhead and into the screen view and the sound moves to the front speakers, you get the feeling it was directly overhead.

I know that you would think that the sound should be just part of a Sub, but it isn't.

For some, the fine detail like this just doesn't matter. In respect to most films the direct sound can be forgiven. For me as I was buying all new speakers I went with the QS8 and really did enjoy them.. I am in the middle of rebuilding a permanent sound room and eagerly await to hear them to their full potential. But it comes down to that point of diminishing return. As you have said.. you really like your VP100 center channel speaker. Would a VP160 or VP180 sound better? Perhaps but the cost vs improvement might not be worth it for you.

Hope this helps.

Thanks, Matt -

For the (low) volume that we listen at, and for the (small to medium) size room we have, I think that the VP100 is perfect. I've previously owned a VP160, and didn't find it as close a match to my M80s as the new VP100.

I find your info on dispersed surround sound most interesting. Could I achieve the same thing by pointing my current surrounds up (toward the ceiling) or backwards (toward reflecting side walls)? If so, then why bother with the QS speakers?

Thanks - Boom

Boom, they don't give precisely the same dispersion effect as do the QSs, but placing direct radiating speakers such as your PSBs so as to not point directly at the listeners can be effective. Try them placed directly to the side of the listeners but pointed backwards at various angles to increase the proportion of reflected sound.

The side of a Di-Polar is that sound is coming from multiple directions at once where your thought to taking a direct radiating speaker and reflecting it off the wall is still only a single source being bounced. take a look at Dipolar Confusion It was a very interesting read and I think it still holds very true today even in the 7.1 relm where I would put up heights on the front over surround rear speakers behind me.

OK - DSPeaker Cinema 8033 "Anti-Mode" first impressions:

I plugged the little box in between my preamp's sub output and my vented 15" subwoofer. I set the calibration microphone atop a tripod at the listening couch at the same height & distance from the back wall as my head would be while listening. I started the "calibration" sequence and my wife INSTANTLY demanded to know what I was doing! The subsonic rumble did shake the house a bit... After explaining that the noise was temporary, I closed the door to the room where she was to minimize her discomfort. The thing cycles four times before calibration is complete.

After calibration, I put on the usual suspects (Bach's Toccata & Fugue in D minor, etc.). Not much difference. I tried the box's equalization (15 to 25 Hz boost or 25 to 35 Hz boost) and neither made any significant difference.

I left it on 25 to 35 & tried some "normal" music. Now I DID hear differences. They came in several different aspects:

1. Bass notes start & stop more quickly. I've always had plenty of bass with this sub, but although the drums & bass notes had plenty of "whomp," they didn't start or stop very abruptly. Leading edges were blurred, and when the notes stopped, there was significant decay time. Don't get me wrong - it sounded good, but not as "live" as the rest of the spectrum. With the box in the signal chain, bass is significantly "dryer." The midrange transient of the drumstick hitting the drum skin or the transient of the pick/thumb on the bass string is now more noticeable at the start of a bass transient. Similarly, when the note stops, the decay is not as long. This robs some of the "bloom" effect, but it seems more accurate to my ears.

2. Bass notes now have better tone: Before the box, there was plenty of bass, but unless a note was sustained, there was some difficulty in appreciating the actual pitch of the note. This is an exaggeration, but I don't quite know how else to describe it. With the box in the signal chain, one can (far) more easily follow the bass lines and their counterpoint with the rest of the music. I played some Glenn Miller and was instantly aware of how the bass notes actually played a clever counterpoint to the main melody. Without the box, this counterpoint was more "suggested" than "explicit." With the box in the system, the pitch of each bass note or of each drum is more discreet and easily discernible.

3. Midrange is more dynamic: This I seriously didn't expect! But without the former "mud" in the bass, the midrange seems to have significantly better "jump factor." I listened for a couple of hours to a wide variety of music (everything from Dash-Rip-Rock to Jennifer Warnes to Big Luther Kent to Itzhak Perlman) and the midrange was strikingly different than what I've previously heard. Note that the box does NOT affect the main speakers AT ALL - It is inserted only between the preamp sub-out and the subwoofer's input jack. Nevertheless, the acoustic benefits to the midrange were perhaps more striking to me than the benefits to the bass.

So to summarize - I knew that I had an excellent sub, but I never realized HOW excellent until the box tamed the room resonances (which I wasn't even aware of until they were gone). The box may not make as big a difference as a new pair of main speakers, but it's definitely more difference than a replacement pair of amplifiers. I think it's a keeper.

Keep in mind that these are very initial impressions, and that some experimentation with box equalization (flat - 15 to 25 boost - 25 to 35 boost) may make some additional difference. I give the box a "thumbs up" and encourage any who may be considering it to give it a shot. For the $$ spent, it makes a big difference.

Boomzilla

PS - The Anti-Mode 8033 has done things that neither Emo-Q nor Yamaha's "YPAO" correction accomplished in my room. I don't know whether this is because the 8033 is subwoofer-specific or not, but it is FAR more successful (to my ears) than any "generic" room correction that I've previously heard. Note that I have NOT heard Dirac, and therefore can't comment on it.

Can you pretty please take measurements before and after? How does it work? Does it find the standing wave fundamental frequency and reduce its level while reinforcing its harmonics to give you better perceived notes without the standing wave pattern? Does it mute the fundamental altogether? What does a sweep sound like? Sounds very cool.

Oh the questions.