Axiom Home Page Forums General Discussion Stereo Axiom 2 Channel / 4 Channel Super System

2.0 active first...
I have similar surround issues in my room. The rears compete with the front channels, running fronts alone sound the best for most content.
Even surround encoded material sounds correct/enveloping in 2.0/3.0.

Hmmmm...I see. I tried all kinds of rears for 7.1 and I can't hear them. I am very happy with 5.1 and side QS10s. I am also very satisfied with 2.1 with the v4.

Some songs do have more of a wow factor in 5.1. 2.1 sets the vast majority of the images in planes behind the speakers while 5.1 expands some images further to the sides. In some pieces, in 2.1, there are some wild effects where images come very far forward and sink back in as if the performer came closer to the audience and then retreated. With the M100s, some parts of Oxygene sound as if there are curved acoustic conduits between the tweeters and 5 feet forward and two feet up my sidewalls. Sound is sourced from the tweeters, goes into my sidewalls, comes out again and sinks back into the tweeters. In Radioactivity, puffs of highs come out of the tweeters and shoot 5 feet forward at the interface between my sidewalls and ceiling. I hear the puffs right at the interface.

The M5s don't make those effects but they have other benefits in that they acoustically disappear in my space. They are not as high fidelity as the M100s and they also have tiny 'nads to boot. The M100s plain out are more sensitive. The M3s acoustically disappear also but their fidelity is lower than the M5s. For some rooms and moods though, the M3s may be better than the M5s.

The system would not be daisy chained, but rather a simple 4.2 with the center channel as phantom engaged. The Marantz easily allows this, along with running Audyssey XT-32 on the subwoofers alone.

With Active 1100's, break the speakers down as 1: 3 front firing woofers, 2: 2 front firing mid ranges, 3: 2 front firing tweeters, 4: 2 rear firing mid ranges and 5: 2 rear firing tweeters.

EACH of the 5 as listed above gets its own channel from an ADA-1500 with no passive crossover. Each is still a single speaker, getting the full range signal from the pre-amp.

This eliminates the "lossiness" of a passive crossover, and will result in what should be superior sound.

I think I now see what you are trying to achieve, Craig. A fully active system without having to resort to a fully active center. I don't know man. I love my 2.1 but not for movies.

I miss read your first post. I pictured 4 (2 pairs) up front...
Lol
4.0 all the way.
Maybe 4.1.4 with 4 800s.
Its not my money but I'd love to be there.

Mojo - With the 1100's, I had some fun with this. The VP180 was placed on the stands in the system, but not hooked up. I played several movie scenes, and asked various people what they thought of the center channel. They walked around the room, and declared it to be one of the best they had heard.

I then showed the unplugged speaker wires, and everyone was astonished.

Hopefully, Ian will soon do some listening tests of his own. The VP180 is a fantastic center - we are listening to one now with the M100's, and the movie soundstage is tremendous. I have just found the 1100's don't need a center.

LOL! I definitely can't achieve that here with my 100s, M5s or M3s. Music yes, movies definitely not!

Hmmm...if that's the case, folks can trade in their centers. Thanks for posting this. I don't think I ever saw this observation from you until now.

How about the low end. Any chance we might not need subs?

Yes, Blair. That's exactly what I thought. That's why I was wondering if Craig was going to stack them. I know his ceiling is too low for that but I thought he was gonna knock a couple of holes through it for the sake of stacking science. LOL!

We will always need subs.

Damn! I was thinking if I don't need the VP160 and the 800v4, I'd use the cash from those to trade up to active LFR1100s.

Craig, I want to know right now, man. Do your 1100s acoustically disappear like my M5s? My M100s do not. Not in my room.