Axiom Home Page Forums General Discussion Home Theater What do you think?

(2)Axiom M80ti powered by Harman Kardon Signature 1.5 (325 wpc)
(5) Axiom M22ti powered by Harman Kardon Signature 2.1 (100 wpc)
Yamaha RX-V1400 (as preamp)
(2) Paradigm PW-2200 v.1's (stacked)

Will the M22's go down to 60hz okay (for HT)?
(I want to use a 40hz crossover for 2 channel music though)

Other components:

Sony ES 400 disc DVD changer
Sony ES 5+1 CD recorder
Sony PS2
Dish Network DVR510
(2) Tripp-lite LCR2400 line conditioners
(2) dedicated 20 amp circuits
El cheapo Panasonic 32" TV

I also forgot:

I haven't purchased the speakers (Axioms) yet.

I'd just like some opinions...PLEASE.

(tap-tap-tap...hello...is this thing on?...tap-tap-tap ?>20 views, no opinions?)

its tooo early, we aint awake yet.. ajax needs at least 3 cups before he is coherent. i think some might be confused as to exactly what you are asking, or what you are trying to do. is this for mainly HT or music, do you have a sub, do mean M22's for your surrounds and everything, are you keeping your center or are you getting the axiom VP150??

if you are power/sound aholic, then you should get the M80's. they are a 4ohm load, but i reckon that H/K can handle it. if you go with the M22's, then you definitely need a sub. the 22 are not recommended for wall mount surround cause they need to breath. you would be better off with the QS8's.

if what you listed, as far as amps and receivers, then you have plenty of power to push whatever you get. the choice just comes down to what kind of sound are you looking for.

bigjohn

I've already slammed my 56oz. of coffee...*LOL*

I listed the subs I have above.

I'd use the 22's as 1 center (I don't like the sound of ANY traditional centerchannel speakers I've heard to date) & 4 surround (I prefer direct radiators).
The surrounds will be mounted on very tall, very (bottom)heavy stands I'd build. I'll use spikes for further stability. I like the idea of using a 22 as a center because: goes lower than VP150 & is ported.

The system will be for 70/30/10 (tv/music/movies). I am way pickier on how the music sounds over anything else.

My music listening consists of: Metal/Hard/Classic rock, 70's/80's pop, pre 2k rap.

i just read your profile and saw you were from texas where?? this is good to see.. the texans are invading with force.. i live in san angelo.. if you are ever in west texas, and want to come listen, feel free.

ok, as long as you dont wall mount the M22's, they should work fine as surrounds. i have never heard of anyone using one as a center channel, so i have no idea what to tell you on that one. sorry, didnt see the sub part. unless you are just dying to blow your windows out with the M80's, i would guess the 22's would be fine. plus, the M80 have been notorious for being very finicky during set-up.. in other words, their placement in the room can be complicated to get their best sound.

once people wake up, you will get more advice.

bigjohn

I want M80's as main l/r speakers (as stated above).

I'm considering 1 more PW-2200 (to end up with a stack of 3- would look monsterous...but no WAF...she knows the HT room & the garage are strictly MY rooms)

Are you drinking decaf? *LOL*

I'm located in Denison (near Lake Texoma, 70 miles north of Dallas)...for now at least...

the M80's will really crank. so if you have a dedicated room, and want the 'primo' axiom series, you will be happy with them.

i would get the VP150 as a center and not an M22. i have no real reason why, maybe just cause thats whats its designed for. i havent heard of anyone using the 22 as a center, so that is new territory.

just a side note. you said you would be using the speakers for 70% tv watching. i hope you have a good reception, or even digital cable or satellite. normal cable receptions tend to have lots of static and really high frequency squeaks that the axioms WILL reveal. it might enhance the inperfections of the signal.. that will not be enjoyable. but they will blow you away with HT and well recorded music.

bigjohn

Dish Network.

The local cable company is only good for an ISP. Their TV picture & audio really is poor quality & way overpriced!

There are several members here who prefer an M2 or M22 for a center speaker (JohnK is one?), so I don't necessarily see that as a problem.

BigJohn, his "(2) Paradigm PW-2200 v.1's (stacked)," are his subs (I'd never heard of them either). Being unfamiliar with them I have no comment.

They only reservation I have about your proposed setup is using the 22s as side surrounds. There's nothing wrong with that, and your and music should sound GREAT. But, If you ever get a digital TV and/or start watching more movies (a very real possibility once you begin to explore the capabilities of your new speakers, IMHO, you'll miss haveing QS series side surrounds. I am an, admittedly, unabashed fan of my QS8s. I don't think your music listening would suffer with QS side surrounds.

Using the 22s as REAR surrounds would work wonderfully. However, the 22s are ported in the rear, so they need at least 3 to 4 inches of "breathing" room behind them. Keep that in mind when you're builing stands and figuring where to place them.

John, I don't drink coffee! I come by my "sunny" disposition naturally, and ALWAYS wake up bright and cheery.

Paradigm PW-2200 are very good subs. Even Tom V. of SVS stated "it doesn't get much better than dual PW's". That's saying something, coming from him!

I have 4 Paradigm Mini-monitors v.3's for surround now. I have yet to hear a dipole I like (I've heard most brands available). The Axiom Q8's don't go low enough to want me to try them either. I'd just have to add rear subs, which I don't want to do (bass cancellations).

Okay, I've had some coffee now, but probably not enough. Plus, you've got to remember that the west coast is a couple hours behind you guys (chronologically, anyway).

Prozakk, that is an awesome setup. You clearly have spent a lot of time and money to put together a great room. My understanding is that the gist of your inquiry is "what are forum members' thoughts about replacing the Paradigm speakers with Axioms?".

I guess I'd have to ask, what is it about the Paradigms that you find unsatisfactory? Don't get me wrong, I'm very happy with my Axioms. Many people here have favorably compared the offerings from these two companies, although I do not have sufficient knowledge about the many Paradigm models to know if those comparisons are valid in this case.

Don't dismiss the QS series surrounds; they are wonderful speakers. You might consider an Outlaw ICBM to alleviate your concerns about range; you clearly have awesome sub capacity, and the notion of using it fully to augment the surrounds seems like an approach worth pursuing. Nevertheless, if you are set on direct-radiators for surrounds, I don't see how you could do better than M22's without going to towers all around (which I think would be tremendous overkill unless you are highly devoted to excellent quality DVD-A/SACD recordings).

Most people really like the Axiom center channel speakers, but if you can configure it right, there will be no problem with using an M22. You would want to positione it vertically.

The only other caveat I would offer is that some people have found the M80's to require very large rooms and precise placement to really shine. I can't tell from your pictures how big your room is or what the seating configuration is like. M60's are fabulous speakers in their own right, and only suffer in comparison to the M80's where both room volume and SPL are concerns.

You might try getting a pair of Axioms (like the M22) to audition them initially. Axiom is a great company to work with, the return policy is good, and if you decide to go all-in subsequently, I'm sure they would still honor any sort of package discount that might be available. You only risk the return shipping, which is unlikely and would not be catastrophic on speakers the size of M22's.

Now, if we can just get the Californians and New Yorkers and Canadians to check in on this....

Not sure I quite understand your rationale behind not wanting to use the QS8's as surrounds. "I'd need to add rear subs"????? LFE is not directional. You've already got dual 2200's...you're low end is more than covered.

Problems with my Paradigms:
Center sucks
None of my monitors can handle much power
Monitor 5's don't go down low enough to blend with subs for music, towers needed for that

Problem with Axiom's surround speakers:
Wont go down to the crossover point of 60hz, that I like to use with HT. If the Q8 had dual 6 1/2", it would be much different. I wish to keep my subs hooked to the subwoofer pre-out.

Use of M22Ti for center: I don't like horizontally placed speakers, period.

Room size: 8' x 16'8" x 18'2"
Plan on building a home in a few years...with a much larger HT room.

In reply to:

---

Problem with Axiom's surround speakers:
Wont go down to the crossover point of 60hz, that I like to use with HT.

---

Ahh, a chance for another refresher course in HT dynamics.
-The frequencies that subwoofers reproduce are highly non-directional
-Surround speakers are effects channels and are never mixed for home use with regard to low frequencies - and if the engineer didn't put it there, you'll never get it back from there. I used direct radiators for surrounds for about a month before I got my QSs and I'm not a fan of the sound. The QSs give a much more enveloping feeling - the way surrounds should respond. But so far you haven't proved in any messages that you're worried about subtlety and balance - just bass, bass, bass.

Have you considered a band of 13" poly or paper drivers in ported boxes... just hang them all around the room - you'll get all the junk-jiggling bass you want.

Bren R.

Quality, not quantity, thanks.

The M80's are a choice, to keep up with the bass.

5.1 means 5 full range channels with 1 lfe channel...a refresher also.

I know of bass being non directional...thus my low crossover preference.

Bren, I'm very interested in understanding this better. I don't know enough about this to doubt; I just want to ask a clarifying question or two. I appreciate the opportunity to learn.

Let's use Prozakk's example. We're running Home Theatre - DD or DTS (not multi-channel audio, that could be different, right?). We're using a 60Hz crossover at the preamp with the surrounds set to small. The QS8's are rated to 65Hz, but "flat" down to only about 95Hz. So, the implication is that there is a coverage gap (or at least uneven response) between 60 and 95Hz, although I realize that the rolloff on the QS8's is gradual and not absolute.

Are you saying that it would be very unlikely or impossible to have DD or DTS surround content in that range (below 95Hz)?

Or is this simply an example why DD/THX/others recommend a 80Hz crossover point?

What would be the theoretical advantages of having a more full-range-capable surround speaker and setting a lower crossover point, rather than the QS8/80Hz example? Is there a valid hypothesis that a future QS12 (with a bigger box and bigger drivers) and lower crossover point to the sub would be "better"?

Or, to put it another way, what are the relative disadvantages of just setting the sub crossover point higher (at 80Hz or even 100Hz)?

I'm thrilled with my QS8's and my inquiry is purely academic. I apologize if these are stupid questions.

The lower the frequency, the less directional it is.

Movies have sounds panning across, lower than 80/100hz.

IMHO, a crossover point shouldn't be lower than it's (speaker)resonant frequency.

In reply to:

---

The QS8's are rated to 65Hz, but "flat" down to only about 95Hz. So, the implication is that there is a coverage gap (or at least uneven response) between 60 and 95Hz, although I realize that the rolloff on the QS8's is gradual and not absolute. Are you saying that it would be very unlikely or impossible to have DD or DTS surround content in that range (below 95Hz)?

---

For what we're talking about - home theatre - and in the rooms sizes we're talking (in the range of 500 sq. ft and smaller), the sub carries all the low frequency effects - which is a good term - it's a feeling and a rumble - not musical and not discernable as the program audio it's reproducing - if you listen to a sub by itself, you're not going to pick out dialog or soundtrack - not even Barry White's voice. The sub carries all the low frequency (thus the .1 discrete channel!) for all the speakers in a home theatre setup.

For what you can actually hear - and want to hear - in a directional or immersive manner, you use mains and surrounds. They're mixed by an audio engineer to spatialize the sound, ie: rain should be mixed equally to all channels assuming the POV is in the middle of the rainstorm, and only to the front channels if the POV is inside a building looking out a window. Another thing that should be mentioned is that DVDs are mass-market, they don't specifically mix them for people with home theatre setups, because we're definately a very, very small minority. Now does this mean they throw a high-pass filter on the surround channels during mixing? Of course not. But they mix under the assumption that even of end users with surround speakers - 90% will be using Bose/Sony/whatever HTIB. It would be nice to think that someone out there was constructing something just for us, but it's just not the case. In short - the surrounds don't HAVE to carry low frequencies (or else Axiom WOULD make a 6.5" dual woofer setup).

In reply to:

---

What would be the theoretical advantages of having a more full-range-capable surround speaker and setting a lower crossover point, rather than the QS8/80Hz example? Is there a valid hypothesis that a future QS12 (with a bigger box and bigger drivers) and lower crossover point to the sub would be "better"?

---

Theorically, you'd have more localized bass in the surrounds, but I'll go with my rubber stamp answer on this one - if you can audibly pick out the surrounds, they're not doing their job, it's a hard thing to swallow... you've just paid $470US for a pair of speakers you're not supposed to hear? It's subtlety, sometimes it's best to go with the bayonet instead of the cannon.

In reply to:

---

Or, to put it another way, what are the relative disadvantages of just setting the sub crossover point higher (at 80Hz or even 100Hz)?

---

For what the surround channels carry, and for the part they play in HT, they're not required to carry ultra-low frequencies, but the higher they're crossed-over, the more you may lose - it's a balancing act. At an 80Hz crossover point - you'll get the sound of a jet flying from the right surround overhead to the left main, for instance, you'll be able to hear it move "over" you, but the jingling-of-keys-in-the-pocket effect comes from your sub. That part, acoustically, you'll never realize - it won't seem like "hey, these turbine engines are flying over me, but the rumble is coming from beside my TV."

If you feel like doing any home research, hook your sub up through the driven lines from one of the surround channels. That'll show you what you should be listening for to see if you're missing it being spatialized.

Bren R.

A processing review/reminder:

First came Dolby Pro Logic:
The rear speakers were delivered a limited frequency matrixed channel, thus home surround speakers were made, quite small. They weren't expected to play below 120hz. The center was matrixed from the FULL range stereo channels.

Next came Dolby Digital:
5 FULL range channels PLUS a Low Frequency Effects channel. 5 20-20,000hz channels (or wider), Plus a channel playing ONLY below 120hz (or 150hz).

Then came Dolby Prologic II (& IIx):
Rear AND center channels were matrixed from FULL range stereo channels.

Prozakk,
I'm also a bit lost on some of your statements.
Your Monitors cannot handle much power? That doesn't make any sense. Any speaker could handle hundreds of watts of power until it theoretically hits a physical excursion limit.

Secondly, you do not want to put a subwoofer in the rear b/c of bass cancellation issues and yet you want your surround speakers to play down to the 60Hz (or less?) range. Bass cancellation would still occur unless you do not consider 60Hz-200Hz tones to be bass.

Third, surround speakers, as Bren iterated towards, are for effects, not bass tones. That IS what the subwoofer is for. I think you are way overestimating how much bass comes from a surround speaker. Dolby Digital 5.1 mixers can make a full range signal but rolloff the low end for the surround channels. Since bass is non-directional, it shouldn't matter where the speaker that creates the tones are located, yet there is this concept that ppl believe on having the tones come from the surrounds. They are not supposed to be FULL range speakers because that is not their fundamental role. There is no 'bass hole' in the playback of music or movies as long as the whole system is playing in unison. If one were to only ever listen to the surrounds and subwoofer, then yes, the idea of having the surrounds play right down to the crossover point of the sub would make sense.

My suggestion is that if you want that much bass from the rear effects, buy a full size tower like another pair of M80s for your surrounds and then turn your receiver to "all channel surround" to get the apparent effects you seek. You could also try putting a sub behind you and tune it out of phase with the front subs to see what effect that will provide.

Also you should note, the M22 turned on its side looks rather like the Axiom VP150 short of a tweeter and a port.

In reply to:

---

Dolby Digital: 5 FULL range channels PLUS a Low Frequency Effects channel. 5 20-20,000hz channels (or wider), Plus a channel playing ONLY below 120hz (or 150hz)..... etc.

---

And on and on goes the Dolby legacy - some analog, some digital, some matrixed, some discrete and to be honest unless I sit and think about it, I can't remember what they've called each permutation. In the end, whether or not a channel can carry a certain frequency range doesn't relate to whether or not the transducer at the end of the chain should reproduce the entire range - after all, mains can carry the full spectrum of human hearing, but you don't see any mains these days with big drivers capable of low frequencies... sometime in the 90s the passive subwoofer driven by the receiver died a horrible death, now the focus is on tight sounding speaker systems with a powered subwoofer (powered here includes a passive with a dedicated amp for those so inclined). And home audio has never sounded better.

Sound is largely a matter of taste, but there are some givens in the whole equation. When you stick to just the math involved without taking into account how the sound is perceived, you end up with a much different animal than it looks on paper.

Bren R.

Once again...if Axiom only made a QS12 (dual 6 1/2", or larger ported enclosure, with current drivers), none of this would be typed.

A speaker that can't do 60hz will not be used by me. No matter what it's location. It's the way that it is. You will not sway me there. You may have convinced yourselves, though.

I should have just been more direct in my 1st post.
Do the 22's match the 80's or 60's better?
Do you think the equipment I have will be a good match with Axiom's?

My monitor 5's have hit their excursion limit via my receiver alone, let alone adding an amp of 200w.

In reply to:

---

A speaker that can't do 60hz will not be used by me. No matter what it's location. It's the way that it is. You will not sway me there. You may have convinced yourselves, though.

---

Would monsieur like some dip for the chip on his shoulder?

Bren R.

No chip. I have no interest in a surround that doesn't go down to 60hz. Plain & simple.

Can I ask why? A surround speaker as amazing as the QS8 would sure as hell change my mind about something like frequency response.