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

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.