Axiom Home Page Forums General Discussion Home Theater Does this sound like a decent set-up?

I realize I'll probably get some biased answers, but also some fairly pertinent responses too. Here's what I'm thinking to match with my HK 330 receiver. The room is 15x18x9 and the speakers will be used almost exclusively for movies and tv.

Fronts - M22s
Center - VP100 or V150 (I've read there's little difference between the two at normal levels...is this right?)

Are these speakers a good match for the Harmon receiver? Is it worth the extra $100 or so for the VP 150?

I'm already well over my budget, so M60's are out of the question. Plus, I'll be matching them with a decent sub.

Thanks for the recommendations.

you are definitely gonna need a sub with the 22's. i think that receiver would work very well with any speakers you hook it up with. you have enough space, to where most of us would recommend the M60's, but we all understand the limitations of a budget. the 22's will be fine, but you are gonna need a sub to pick up the lower end.

i notice you didnt mention any surrounds. that is an essential part in creating the complete HT experience. if you can, i would go with the VP100 center, and try to get some QS4's. or even, get the QS4's(or QS8's) now, and get the center channel later. you can always run the receiver to create a 'phantom' center, until you can get one for real. i think you would get much better benefits from the surrounds than you would the center. just my opinion.

but, overall, you will be extremely pleased with the axiom line. ALL of their speakers are top-notch, and that HK will power them well.

good luck in your final decisions.

bigjohn

Thanks, john.

How would the M2s or M3s work as surrounds? Do the dedicated QS4s and QS8s work better for surround imaging? You've made it sound like I wouldn't get much of a benefit by upgrading to a VP150 from the VP100.

I hate to cheap out on things, but what was originally a "don't want to spend more than $3K on the everything including the TV" has quickly turned into "I'm closing in on $5K now"...LOL.

you can use the M2/M3's as surrounds, but i think you like the performance of the QS series MUCH better. their quad-polar design does a great job of projecting the sound in all directions which really create an enveloping sensation. i often compare it to being 'in' the movie, instead of just watching the movie. but, to answer your question, if a budget is in consideration, you will get good performance from the M2/M3's, but BETTER performance from the QS series.

i have never heard the VP100, but i really like my VP150. i know ray has the 100, and he is very pleased with how it sounds. so, i think you going with the 100 will be fine. but, as i stated before, i really think you might wanna consider getting the surrounds first, then getting a center later. thats just how i would do it. then again, i use blackberry jelly on my PBJ's, so what do i know?

$3K including the TV...... yes, i can see how you are having a hard time with that. i have had to piece my system together over time. and i still just have a basic 36inch tube.. i am waiting for the LCD prices to fall a bit here in the next few years to get the TV. patience i have, money i dont!!

bigjohn

Don't feel bad about working within a budget. Most of us are doing that... sometimes even buying one speaker set at a time over a year or so as budget permits. Just means you need to plan further ahead.

My QS8s just showed up yesterday so I'm still playing with them. What I can tell you is that there is a lot more apparent difference between QS surrounds and M2 surrounds than there was between VP100 center and M2 center (I had the M2s in every position at one time or another). [EDIT] I think the same would apply to the VP100 vs. VP150 difference, ie your money would be better spent upgrading the surrounds rather than the center.

In addition to the more obvious benefits, having QS surrounds gives you the same advantage as having a good center -- the sound doesn't change so much as you move around the room, ie all seating positions are good.

I would cast another vote for VP100 over VP150 in your case, spend the $$ on surrounds.

Excellent. Thanks for the tips.

John, I've worked in the reverse from your schedule. First came the beautiful 65" Mitsy Diamond. That blew the $3K budget right out of the water. Now I'm scrambling to piece together a decent HT system. From the way these axioms are described, I won't be disappointed with their performance.

Thanks again.

Sounds nice. If I were you I would just get a nice sub and some good fronts. No center, no surround until budget permits. The combination of a good sub and the clarity of the Axioms (or any equally good speaker) will astound you even without surround...

M2s and a big sub work surprisingly well, but if you can do M22s they would definitely help in your big room.

And now for the other side of the coin.

I'd be more concerned about setting up a full soundstage (did I just use that buzzword? I'll pay the fine!) before adding effects (which is what a sub really is). But I'm definately in the minority in the "home audio" crowd - it's driven by people who want the most junk-jiggling bass (as the expense of all else - SPLs are king!)... the most compressed sounding CDs. What, dynamics? Pffftt... loud - all the time - gimme 0 dBFS. Mezzopiano? I can't play the piano!

Ever seen an engineer mix with a sub? You won't... and if you do, and he's not mixing an electronica / house / dance / trance / prance / sh*t your pants album and you see him using one, walk out of the studio. Ever seen a field engineer wearing a set of cans and sitting on a sub because he's worried he might not be getting the full experience?

Again, I'm not the poster boy for who BestBuy is trying to sell to. And most here wouldn't agree with my position, but if you're looking at a 2.1 system, you've got stereo. For about the same cost (depending how much you're looking at for a sub) you could have 4.0 (is that the accepted name for fronts and surrounds?) or 5.0 - and actually be immersed in your listening experience, but your trouser train wouldn't be vibrating. There is a quick fix for that, it'll cost you about $20 and 3 D cell batteries, but I won't get into that.

Bren R.

I agree completely on the music front, but the system is targeted "almost exclusively for movies and tv".

For music I would buy a sub last, not first.

Thank you for not exploring the more unhygenic options for "bass you can feel"

In reply to:

---

I agree completely on the music front, but the system is targeted "almost exclusively for movies and tv". For music I would buy a sub last, not first.

---

Forgive me for challenging what's just widely regarded as the gospel on this by the marketing types - but, if I understand correctly:

For TV and Movies - which are naturally and often mixed and presented multi-channel (unless you're watching off-air stereo TV or older movies presented in 2 channel or mono) - the natural instinct would be to put together a stereo system w/LFE.

For music - which is almost always mixed and presented in stereo (there are some SACDs that are recorded multi-channel, I understand, but those are much less than 0.1% of available albums today) - people would lean towards a multi-channel system.

Does sound backwards when someone challenges it, don't it?

Bren R.