Axiom Home Page Forums General Discussion Home Theater Bookshelves back to back for surrounds?

Does anyone know of a situation where, for instance, someone took two small bookshelf speakers and mounted them next to each other on a 45 degree brace to simulate a bipole surround speaker?

Something like this:

I would think that doing this with, for an example, a couple of M3s would give more capability than most surrounds...?

well i suppose it would work, but you'd have to deal with the extra impedence of adding them in series (or less, if you rigged the speaker wire for them to be in parallel) in addition to the fact that it'd be a pretty big Frankenstein-ish speaker!

Definitely wouldn't do it in series. In parallel, it would be fine with an adequate receiver/amp--4 ohms.

As much as I admire your initiative wouldn't it just be easier to buy a QS series speaker?

"I put a wide angle between the two cubes in each surround speaker to achieve a wider, more open rear sound field. The adjustability of these speakers might seem like a small point, but their flexibility can dramatically improve sound quality."



Something like what Sound and Vision did with their Bose surrounds ?

Ah.....that's the key.....there is no QS with 6.5s

And Im'a waitin' and'a hopin' for a QS10 or 12


But what a tall "Cube" idea!!

My thoughts were that if you had a BIG, dedicated room (let's say 18' wide by 25' long), that QS-8s would not fare well.

To be very frank, after I made that post, I went to the Axiom store and saw that a QS-8 handles more power than an M3 (400 watts vs. 175) and is more effecient than an M3 as well (95 dB vs. 92 dB per one watt). Actually, the only spec that's better on the M3 from a performance standpoint is the lower bass capability (60Hz for an M3 vs. 95Hz for the QS8).

I had really thought that a pair of M3s per side would fill a large room better. Maybe that's not the case at all? Much as I love my QS8s, they just seem so little to compare with floorstanders on complex material. As a matter of fact, when I play my Blue Man Group Audio disc, I'm always fearful of hurting my QS8s. Maybe, after reminding myself of their specs, I was concerned needlessly?

I like the M3 idea cause I like my surrounds to go a little lower than the 5.25 can reach in a sealed box. So an M3 variant is a good starting point.

I think the issue is frequency response, and keep pushing the idea. I imagine one of the reasons the QS8s can handle the power is because they are sealed... but the sealed enclosure limits their ability to go deep.

My first priority is still pushing for a big-ass M60-based center channel though

YeahDitto that

I...of course....am hoping for an M50 variant.(quick, before I buy and butcher a new M50)



"Butcher" sounds so crass, but "Frankenstein" has already been taken.