howdy people, it's been a while since i last posted here, hope everyone is doing great. i currently have a 7.1 and my four surround channel speakers are QS8's mounted close to the ceiling height around 6'8" to center of speaker. i'm going to upgrade to ATMOS to a 7.1.4 configuration by the end of this year or by/before end of quarter one 2016.

my thought is this, use the existing wiring i have for current surrounds and use them for ATMOS speakers, run new wires to re-use the QS8's. so, my question is, how do the QS8's sound at the seated ear level? the closest listening position to the physical speaker would be about 4'+.

i've never heard the QS8's at ear level so, i don't know how they would sound. i expect they will sound just as good, but, i want to have some folks who currently have theirs mounted at seated ear level heights.

i plan on having 4 ceiling mounted speakers for ATMOS but i want to keep my QS8's for surround no question, i love the huge surround field they produce and have for years!

thank you in advance to everyone who chimes in. please, please i really want to hear from folks who either currently do have their speakers (QS8's) at seated ear level height or those who don't, but, have actually heard them (QS8's) at seated ear level. and yes, i'd like to know if you like it or don't like it at that height.

again, thanks to everyone who responds and as usual, lets keep it civil.

Welcome back SD!!

Axiom's stands for the QS speakers are 38" tall....

I see what you did there!

thanks for your response.

Welcome back SD,
I'll throw in my $0.02. My QS8's are mounted on the Axiom stands at ear level. The surround field they produce is excellent. To be honest, I have never heard the QS8's setup in a different arrangement. I wouldn't be too worried about their performance at your new configuration. I recently purchased a new AVR (Denon AVR-X2200W) and TV (70" LG 70UF7700). The Audyssey setup on the Denon is fabulous. I am hearing passages in music I have never heard before with the QS8's.
Cheers,
Shaun

thank you so much for your response. I'm glad to hear from someone who has them mounted at ear level and in your case using the axiom stands made for them. I do hope to hear from some others who listen or have listened to them at a seated ear height and what they thought of them like that.

again, thank you Shaun!

Just keep in mind that Atmos and DTS:X really need direct radiating speakers and not bi/di/quad-pole speakers in order to image properly. Not saying that you can't try QS8s with Atmos or the upcoming DTS:X, but you won't get as precise of imaging as you could with monopole speakers.

Dolby reps told me this specifically last year at CEDIA 2014, and this year at CEDIA 2015, everyone was using monopole speakers for surrounds.

nick, thanks for your response and the info, but, if you read my OP, i never intended to use the QS8 speakers as ATMOS speakers. re-read my OP and it will be clear, i hope. i am stating that i'm upgrading to ATMOS and i will have 4 ceiling mounted speakers for ATMOS heights, i wanted to know from people who used QS8 speakers how they sounded at ear level since mine are currently mounted close to the ceiling. the QS8's would still do what they are doing now, channels 4-7 they will not be transmitting ATMOS speaker info. hope that cleared it up for you.

again, thanks for your response and that's great info for folks to know. just not what i was planning or asking.

Maybe I am still missing something. There is more to an Atmos setup that just adding ceiling speakers. The traditional "surround" speakers that are on the wall (not ceiling) should be monopole too. That is what I was getting at, so my statements still stand.

Bi/di/quad-pole speakers are considerably less than ideal (per Dolby, I have not personally experienced this, but it was convincing enough for me to replace my QS8s with on-wall M3s a year ago) in the side and rear surround positions for any immersive audio format like Atmos or DTS:X.

I can't answer your question about ear height, but like others have stated, the stands are at ear height, and I am sure that a number of people have done it. The QS speakers are very forgiving in their placement (which in the end is actually counter productive to precise imaging for Atmos and DTS:X).

With all of that said, just try them and if you aren't getting "wowed" by Atmos, then I woudl suggest changing out to monopole surrounds at that point. Maybe you will feel that the effect is "good enough" to not worry about swapping the surround speakers...

ok, i gotcha now. when that time comes, i'll let you know. to your point, for me, i paid a lot for these QS8 speakers so, in surround duty in an atmos environment, yeah, i'm gonna give them a try. when i get to it, i'll be sure to post here what i think.

thanks for clarifying things for me.

A part that you have to consider. Atmos has been around for a while now but I will say that the adoption rate is not the greatest.

If I agree with Dolby that directional monopole speakers are far better for Atmos (and DTS-X) then you need to decide. I personally believe that the omni di-polar speaker design is far better for Dolby Digital 5.1/7.1 and DTS 5.1/7.1.

Ask then what you are going to get the most use of? If your movie collection / source is going to be Atmos / DTS-X then it would make more sense to get all directional speakers. However, if the Atmos/DTS-X is going to be a small percentage of the viewing, then I'd stick with the QS8s.

thanks oak, you make some very good points. all things to consider. thank you for your responding.

I was surprised to see Klipsch Speakers offering this package listed as the Klipsch Speakers 7.1.4 Dolby ATMOS Speaker Package it also includes an ATMOS ready receiver. note the 4 surround speaker configuration. keep in mind that this may be a package offered by the online seller/distributor and not Klipsch, but it's clearly sold as an ATMOS package.

I would gather that they think this type of surround speaker is suitable in an ATMOS capable system. seeing this gives me a glimmer of hope that my QS8's might be ok for use as surround speakers in an ATMOS setup.

here is a 5.1.4 setup listed on the Klipsch Speakers site. interestingly enough, the front L&R towers have built-in ATMOS modules on the top down inside the speaker, but, the system also includes 2 ceiling mounting speakers for the rear heights. I wonder why didn't they just go with 4 ceiling mounted speakers? in any case, not the surround speaker driver configuration shown. this is offered directly from Klipsch.

hey oakvillematt, just wanted to make sure you understood, I didn't make the previous two post to piss you off or anything. I posted them because I found a speaker maker that sells an ATMOS system that appears to go against the bi/di/quad pole surround sound speakers either not recommended or not able to sound correctly in an ATMOS configuration.

I'm also not saying it sounds good or bad in an ATMOS configuration, I am showing that it is something that is in fact available for sale as part of a listed ATMOS system.

I didn't want this to become a battle or anything. I respect yours and anyone's opinion and insight to my quest for understanding.

There are speaker manufacturers who are selling up firing speakers too and selling them as ATMOS. I personally could not care less as I have ZERO plans to got to that sound format. To me it's a total waste of money for honestly no real gain what so ever. Manufacturers are free to flog whatever they want. Dolby suggests what will work best, but it's not like THX that has a defined standard that must be met to get the official stamp logo.

The only part that has me somewhat interested was a comment made by DTS about their DTS-X in that they were saying that object based mixing they could let level control be given to each item, or for example, give a +5db to the voices object and not effect any other object that may be coming through that center speaker. That may be cool for those of use with slightly less accurate hearing who sometimes get stuck with badly mixed movies who loose the voice because too much other non essental audio is getting pushed out the center that it obscures what is being said.

I don't need sound coming from above me to enjoy a movie. I am not about to toss my QS8 surrounds let alone my LFR1100 fronts that are also omni polar.

while I do not share the belief that ATMOS (or DTS-X, AURO:3D or any potential new object based audio system for that matter) is a waste of money. I know there are many people who have it and love it. I respect your point of view as you have made it very clear.

I also respect you not wanting to give up your QS8's as I do not intend to give up mine.

I never wanted this to be as much about ATMOS (DTS-X or AURO:3D) as I really just wanted to know how people liked the sound of their QS8 speakers at ear level. I mentioned the ATMOS part to get folks to understand why I am going to lower my QS8's to ear level (since i'll be mounting 4 speakers at the ceiling level) and I've never heard them at that level before and was just wondering how they performed and what peoples experiences with them at that height were. I love the QS8's exactly where they are and they are the best surround speakers I've ever heard. just listening to them in my 7.1 system is amazing.

Oak, thank you for your responses.

moving forward, I am hopeful to get more folks who as I asked in my OP, who have the QS8's at ear level either wall or stand mounted and how they like the sound of them at that height.

My QS8 are at ear level and they work just like they are supposed to. As they are not a directional speaker, They tend to fill a large space with defused sound that solves the issue with dolby/DTS surround modes. In mixing for these movies, the surround from what I was to understand is supposed to be seen as coming from somewhere behind you. What the QS speakers do well is open up the sweet spot so you can sit 3-4' from the speaker and still have it sound radiant so the sound still seems to be coming from somewhere rather than 'oh that surround speaker just went off'.

I understand why you put the speaker in the ceiling level to get it as far away from the seating as possible, as this was the trick for directional speakers to allow them to radiate sound as much as possible before it hit someones ears. As the QS speakers do that so well for you, this need is no longer there.

You will be more than happy with the effect you are getting.

thanks oak, that's what I wanted to hear (pun intended! ) was input from folks that actually have heard the QS8's at ear level. they do an excellent job up high, but, since I'm moving them down, it's great to have heard from a couple of folks on how good they sound at ear level.

again, thanks for your input!

My QS8s are at ear level about 6' back on my rear wall in my oddly shaped room.

They are quite asymmetrically placed in relation to my MLP but still work really well due to their unique sound dispersion characteristics...

TAM

thanks TAM, I have 2 surround back QS8's (currently mounted up high) sound great as well. I'm glad to know you have a positive experience with the QS8's mount at ear height.

thanks for sharing!

Just a few more comments...

Yeah, my QS8 are sitting in boxes. They cost more than the M3 on-walls that currently are in my room. The four QS8s sit about 5 feet from my VP150 that is boxed up. I keep thinking about selling them or getting trade-in credit, but I just don't know (yet) how I can install something like on-wall M3s on to my ceiling safely, but almost flush (slighting tilted towards the listening area, but not down so far as what a FMBracket does.) I certainly don't want to punch big holes in my most sound-proofed surface of my theater (the ceiling) to put in-ceiling speakers up there. Until then, and until I can afford a new receiver that does both Atmos and DTS:X with power to all 11 speakers, I have time to figure it out.

Klipsch marketing is clueless. They didn't even have anything Atmos at CEDIA from a demo perspective. They aren't even really "in the game" yet. Heck, even Pioneer was further into the Atmos options that Klipsch, and Pioneer speakers are on the low/cheap end.

People shouldn't discount Atmos (or DTS:X) without ever even hearing it. Keep in mind that the Atmos and DTS:X processors do an incredibly amazing job of "upmixing" regular 5.1 and 7.1 into 5.1.4 and 7.1.4. You don't need to have dedicated mixes to get some really good improvement in playback effects. Also, you do NOT, I repeat, you do NOT have to add ceiling speakers to also benefit from Atmos or DTS:X. Both sound formats use what speakers you have. You might not get the "over your head" effects, but it will definitely make sound objects anywhere in your "speaker-height" listening plane of your current setup.

I am not nocking Atmos or DTS-X. I am sure that they are very capable technology that can do some wonderful things.

I have Dolby Z that can give me wider fronts. With the LFRs they really didn't add much.

Since my wife started to work at one of the banks up here that has some promotion with the only major movie company, I have gone to quite a few more shows than I use to in the past. They have the Atmos and Ultra AVX and to be totally honest, I can't say the movie experience was any better than the cheep theater in town that costs 1/3rd the price.

For home watching, I think that I will get far more bang for my buck getting a more comfortable couch than more speakers. I watch movies for a distraction and entertainment, not a profession. I get just as much enjoyment out of a DVD as I do a blu-ray that is supposed to give better picture and sound. that is just me

howdy Nick, loved what you wrote there! however, Klipsch does have ATMOS ready modules that are either built into some towers (those model numbers are followed by an "A") as well as separate ATMOS modules to sit on top of towers and surrounds; I've seen them at their site and at a couple of places to buy too.

you were spot on about ATMOS mixes being good even without an ATMOS receiver/pre-amp. the core, Dolby TrueHD 7.1 is amazing and I'm not sure how they've done it, but those mixes always sound better on my currently non-ATMOS 7.1 system.

yes, your right, ATMOS will work with just my conventional 7.1 speaker system once I add the new pre-amp, but, I want the full effect and to get that, I have to add ceiling speakers. I don't want to use the ATMOS up-firing speaker modules.

I live in an apt. I plan to purchase 4 in ceiling speakers from monoprice, they also sell round box enclosures for the speakers backs so I can mount them to the surface of the ceiling and I will get what I want while in an apartment.

they are 8" woofers with 3/4" tweeters and I am sure they will be just fine for me especially since the cost of them shipped to me would be $221.00 I can't put a huge amount of money on the Axiom ceiling mounted speakers as that would be like $1k for 4 of the M3 in ceiling speakers.

while they won't be timbre matched to my existing 7 Axioms, I am sure they will do the job.

Matt: I hear you about comfy seating. I would enjoy watching movies more myself if I had spent about another $2000 in the seating.

Solar: I never said that they didn't have Atmos enabled (upfiring) speakers, just that they didn't even touch the subject at CEDIA where you really want to show off your latest and greatest. They are still focusing on the 5.1/7.1 market. Nothing wrong with that, just saying that compared to other vendors that really wanted to show off Atmos and/or DTS:X (lower end like Pioneer, higher end like Triad, high end like JBL/Steinway Lyngdorf) who ALL had either upfiring demos (Pioneer and Triad), or overhead, (JBL and Steinway Lyngdorf) they all used direct radiating (monopole) surrounds. So setups from $2000 (receiver and 5.1.4 with upfiring speakers from Pioneer) to the $165,000 (processor, amps, and 9.1.4 with overhead speakers from Steinway Lyngdorf) all had direct monopole surrounds. Basically, every speaker was monopole.

Klipsch had a cool booth, but they seem to be doing a "us too" kind of approach to it instead of actually getting the quick and easy recommendations from Dolby and DTS themselves like other manufacturers did. Too bad because Klipsch has quite the following with a good % of the market.

I never weighed in, but I had my QS8s on stands (ear-height) for a long time, and I was always happy with the result. My side surrounds are currently raised higher, since they have EP800s under them, but my rear surrounds are still on stands.

I want to move to Atmos, but I'll wait until UHD Blu-ray has been out for a little while, and I'm curious what other offerings Axiom will have at that point. I'm hoping there will be something for people with lower ceilings, since this is the space I'm stuck with. I bought one set of M22s in anticipation, but, like you, I'll still try out the QS8s to see how they perform.

CV, thank you for your post, it's exactly the type of post i'm looking for. my move to ATMOS comes from me getting ready to change out my old failing 5507 pre-amp. i'm going with the marantz 7702 mkII and that should keep me going for years to come. i do not have high ceilings, mine are at 7' which is kinda standard and i expect the ceiling mounted speakers to work just fine.

i suspect it's going to be a nice sonic change for me when i do move the surrounds down to seated ear level. i plan on doing that before i get the pre-amp to get my brain use to having the surrounds at that level. the pre-amp is still a couple of months out, but will be in place by or before the end of the first quarter 2016. i'll probably burn my tax refund on that purchase.

again, CV, thanks for posting. i'm also glad you have enjoyed your QS8's at ear level.

Don't have time to read entire thread but ....

I upgraded to Atmos this time last year. I use M3 in ceilings for the Atmos speakers. Because my room never made sense for a 7.1 setup I have always ran a 5.1 with the QS8's up high. Some where around 7'. I have two rows of seating, and my back riser is only about 8" high. In 5.1 this setup worked fine in one house, but for some reason in my second house I was never happy with the qs8's up high and since both rooms were very close in size I was puzzled.

With the upgrade to Atmos, I originally just installed the ceiling speakers in top rear/top front positions and left the qs8's high. This was a HUGE mistake and I knew it would be but I tried it anyways because who likes running more in wall wires? Well, with the qs8's up high there was no way to tell when sound was coming from the top rear's or just the qs8's. It all sounded the same.

So, down they came. More wires ran in wall, and now they sit at ear level when sitting down in my front row. Right off the bat, huge difference be it with atmos or not. Glad I did it. Atmos now sounds great.

Now as for the direct radiating speakers vs qs8 issue. Atmos is very hard to configure for two row seating. The ceilings speakers being the most difficult to place especially in my ceiling where I had few choices to mount. Side surrounds like the QS8's actually help my second row since they fire at both rows when positioned between them. Remember I only have 5.1.4 or technically 5.2.4. I feel I am missing something without the surround backs....which I will remedy once DTS dsx gets popular.

With a new setup from scratch, I'd go with direct firing bookshelves all around in a 7.2.4 setup at min. Dual subs are a must. The old model of big old towers in front and bi poles or whatever in rear doesn't seem optimal for atmos. You want all speakers to be similar.

Now, as for the top firing modules on the front speakers - do not waste youe time.

Lots of Atmos titles out there now, really enjoy my setup. But I'd caution waiting for the DTS solution to finalize, and make sure to go with a 7.2.4 setup at least.

The other last tidbit concerns the M3 in ceilings. They need aimable tweeters. I'm not saying they do not work well in Atmos...because they do, but if you could aim them towards the mlp they would be much better.

Thanks for chiming in newf. I totally agree with what you are saying about why you have QS8s in a 5.1.4 setup with two rows of seats, but you would go monopole if starting over, dropping to ear height was a huge improvement for Atmos, don't wait for DTS:X (Atmos "upmixer" is supposed to be really good), and that the M3 in-ceilings need an aimable tweeter. I said that back on the day that they were announced as they seemed like a great fit for Atmos otherwise.

Had I not needed a new amp last year suddenly, I would not have jumped on Atmos so soon. That and the wonderful coupon Axiom had for black friday last year is how I ended up with my ceiling speakers. I only bought a Denon x4100 though so it wasn't a huge investment but it is the main reason why I'm stuck at 5.2.4 since it can't do 7.2.4

Now, with DTS:X so close, I'd just wait. But yes, the up mixer is really good for Atmos.

I've always been curious what all on wall speakers would sound like. They are so neat and compact it would be great for small room setups / atmos. I still favor a couple of bigger speakers up front for music myself, but for HT as long as you had two really good subs it might be ok. I have on wall setup in another small room, not the main HT, but it is only 5.1. M2 and M22's and 150 but in a larger room I wonder how they would do. My small room is only 12x14 with svs subs.

I have a coworker that I got him hooked up with Axiom speakers for his new house. He is a total cheapskate though, so he went with the smallest in walls and surrounds that he could get (M2 fronts, and a VP100, and 4 QS4s for surround duty). His space is a quite large, open basement with a LOT more CuFt of air than my 14x24x8 space. His directly opens up to a large wet bar area in the back and there is this big open stairway area that goes upstairs.

Everything sounds really good except he is trying to still use an old, small, underpowered sub. I think that it has an 8" woofer is all. Can't even get Audessey to calibrate to it correctly because in order to get enough dB in the room to start the calibration without it being all "flabby" sounding and distorted.

I agree though that the front sound stage should have the largest speakers you can get or afford since they do a bulk of the work, and then go with something smaller for surrounds, like usual. I really like the on-wall M3s. They can't handle the watts of the QS8s, but can go a bit deeper with their larger driver. Not saying that the QS8s aren't amazing, we all know that they are.

Hi everyone,

So if I'm understanding this thread correctly, you're all saying that QS8s are a bad idea if you plan to go with an Atmos or DTS:X setup, and that direct firing surround speakers are actually better?

I'm seriously considering getting LFR1100s for the fronts and QS8s for the surrounds, which would be on stands at approximately ear level, but now I'm concerned that it wouldn't play nicely with Atmos and DTS:X...

It certainly seems Dolby had monopoles in mind when creating Atmos, with the potential for more precise placement of the audio objects, but I'm still looking forward to reading impressions of experimentation with alternate setups.

However, if you're starting from scratch and are gearing your system toward object-based home theater applications, I'd probably go M22s all-around, wait a little bit to see if they update the in-ceiling speakers at all, and put the money saved from the LFR1100s toward an EP800 or two, assuming you don't have your subwoofer situation settled. How would the rest of you do it?

But don't forget to budget for your 4K TV that does the REC2020 Wide Gamit. Then you will need to make sure that your receiver properly handles the HDMI2.0 and HDCP2.2. What about Dolby Vision support??

I agree with CV, nobody knows if the QS series surrounds won't sound pretty good with Atmos or DTS:X. Yes, Dolby and DTS specs state that all speakers should be monopole for best results. This makes a lot of sense from a physics perspective...

Think of every monopole speaker as a laser (I know, sound waves expand as they get further away from the speaker, but just go with me on this). Now, lets say that you need to have a sound object appear to the right of center, but to the left of the right speaker (basically between the center and right speaker), but about 2 feet overhead and half way between the front speakers and your ears... So take that "laser" from each speaker and make a line to that exact spot that the sound object is to come from. They all come together in a point. Now again, sound isn't pin-point like that, so look at the closest speakers to that point, since they can't be laser focused, the closest speakers will play the sound louder and the further away you get from that point, the sound coming from those speakers will be quieter or even non-existent.

So now take an amazing quadpole (or di/bi-pole) surround speakers. They broadcast a very, very wide sound field up/down/right/left and this makes it have "4 lasers" in our scenario, but none of them are pointing *into* the room. Thus the speaker needs to increase volume of a particular sound object to get it into the 3D sound field of your room, the problem is that when it does that, it also shoots that sound out on 3 other directions that you don't want it to.

Again, not saying that it is *that* bad, and I am using the idea of a pinpoint laser to represent sound waves that aren't pinpoint, but hopefully this goofy scenario example helps to show why monopole perform better for creating objects, but unlike my example, we don't know how quadpoles will work in real world Atmos setups.

So if you are wanting Atmos at some point and are starting from scratch, I would go with monopole speakers all around. I really like my M3 on-walls for surround duty and their frequency range. They are a good match to my M60 fronts.

Nick the problem I see with your scenario is that a speaker is more like a flashlight. And given the speed of sound vs the size of the room along with both early and late reflections your theory may have some holes in it. Our ear/brain is quite good and gathering what it needs and rejecting what is not needed. On a strictly theoretical level what you posit would make sense but if you are sitting on the right side of the room when the right speaker produces a sound you are unlikely to hear the direct sound and more like to receive a reflected sound especially with higher frequencies.

This is just how I see it and maybe I am out in left field I doubt I will ever be able to test this theory but maybe one day when your up and running you can give us some real world feedback. I do get what your saying though, probably will not work as well as direct as per dolby recommendations.

This post is speculative, so keep that in mind.

Is there a polar response plot floating around for the QS series speakers? I would guess it would be clover shaped in the nearfield. The center lobe of the clover would be from the top and bottom drivers's off axis response -again guessing.

The on axis 1w/m measurements as tested in sound and vision were very low iirc. When I asked here it was explained the db sensitivity spec was combined over a wide listening window. Directly in front of the speaker is an acoustic shadow. -guessing again.

The qs series speakers rely on reflections and boundry effect to create their soundfield. I'm not sure how this would translate into a dialed in x,y,z coordinate system like atmos etc. It's like asking a grenade to only hit one target within an area. They kind of do 'grenade' immersion all the time without specific instructions. Its good in a way if you think about it. It allows you to sit really close without a hot spot and good surround effect. But at a distance or with x,y,z instruction, they are relying on a lot of room influence to get their job done. If you arent sitting close to them, or dont have them on the wall, their response may be difficult to predict.

Thanks Socketman, yes a flashlight would be more accurate. I used the term "laser" just because we are trying to make pinpoint sound locations, or at least pretty close ones. I did, as you will read, note that sound is obviously NOT laser precise and that I was just trying to make a visual picture.

Again, I also continue to tell people that what I am talking about it purely "ideal" conditions as directed from Dolby, and the somewhat limited DTS information. We rarely live in that ideal space in our listening rooms, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't strive for the more "ideal" instead of starting with a "compromise" as the starting point.

Exactly....

Sorry for any snippy tone in my posts. It is Monday, I am at work dealing with morons, and I have been running on hardly any sleep for the past 2 week, plus sick for the past 8 days.

A quote i really liked was "Morons, they come a dime a dozen. I want to know who is supplying all the dimes?"

But that exact point was why the QS8's worked so well for 5.1 and 7.1. We don't have a perfect room so the sound that you get from one speaker on one side of the room doesn't mean the other side will produce the same. Think of people with L shaped room, or rooms where the HT is stuck to one side so they effectively only have 3 walls or even 2.

The current Dolby/DTS mode is you have your 5 channels where there is a definate Left, Right, Center and then the around abouts called surrounds. It works in odd rooms as the surrounds are your pretty much large field effects that don't have to have pinpoint accuracy. As soon as you make it required, then you are going to have to spend far more time on making the room perfect in order for the perfect sound to stay that way.

Agreed. The QS speakers are WONDERFUL for 5.1 and 7.1 configurations, rooms with unusual issues or placement limitations, etc.

A bit long-winded, but I'll get to why I posted in this thread.

While visiting my sister in Lynnwood, we stopped in at a home theater store since we noticed the sign, and we were waiting for my nephew as he went to an eye appointment. We told the salesman there we weren't really in the market, but rather just killing time as we waited for someone. There wasn't anyone else around, though, so he took time to just shoot the breeze and ultimately give a brief demonstration some of their wares. Almost at the beginning, he asked what kind of system I had at home, and I mentioned my Axiom speakers. He knew the name, but he didn't really have anything to say, but a minute later he was talking about an amp they had hooked up, and it was a Bryston. I said, "Oh, Axiom worked with Bryston on their speakers." He pointed at a pair of speakers toward the front of the demo room. Oh, yeah, a pair of Bryston speakers.

We had to leave before I could get him to fire them up, but he did show off the first battle scene in Master & Commander with the M&K speakers that were hooked up behind the acoustically transparent (Seymour) screen, and he was also showing off the Epson laser projector. Unfortunately, they weren't set up particularly well. The system wasn't strained at all, even at the demo volume, but it still sounded muddled. The image quality fared no better. It didn't seem to be calibrated well, with the contrast being pumped too high without the picture being as vibrant as I'd hoped for a laser projector. I was polite and said the demo was a lot of fun, but I came away with an even higher appreciation for my own setup. Not that I think mine is set up perfectly, but it's still nice to know mine can compare favorably to what a store uses to show off.

As far as brands, besides Bryston, I saw Wharfedale, Triangle, and M&K for loudspeakers. I can't remember what the subwoofers were at the front of the room, but he had a giant SVS sub at the back of the room which he admitted he hadn't yet integrated well into the system. Bryston amps, Emotiva amps, tube amps he said a friend makes (100 watts/channel). Audioquest cables, which he was almost apologetic for carrying, and he called them the Monster Cable of the high-end. I was surprised to see both SVS and Emotiva. He didn't say anything about actually carrying the SVS, but he said he was trying to be the first, or one of the first, brick & mortar stores carrying Emotiva.

In any case, the reason I was posting here is because of his talk of the M&K speakers he had hooked up for the demo. He made the point several times that M&K speakers were used when creating different audio standards, and they were used to mix the Star Wars movies. He made special mention of the tripole surrounds. They not only shoot out at an angle like the QSes, but they shoot directly out as well, which he thought would be great for Atmos. Still fills in the gaps, but then also has a sense of that more precise placement. I don't think he had an Atmos processor actually set up yet, but it would have been nice to put that to the test. I'd be interested in seeing them directly compared to the QS8s in an Atmos setup.

I enjoyed spending some time talking to someone who just loves the hobby, even if the demo didn't really wow me. It was nice that he took all of that time despite no prospect of a sale.

Cool story.

Interesting. I wonder just how those tripoles with one woofer pointING straight out would do. Almost seems like the best of both worlds, but at the same time I don't know how much value I put into a sales guy at store that doesn't seem to properly set up even their own equipment that they sell. Still, it would possibly be slightly closer to what Dolby wants. Then again, anything that it "filling gaps" in a sound field wouldn't seem to be precise enough to create a pinpoint Atmos object. Who knows... sounds like a fun time killer that you had though.

My brain if playing tricks on me. I remember reading a passage about the Dolby response to QS8 vs direct radiating speakers. Something to the point that DiPole/OmniPole speakers were designed to simulate an array of surrounds like were used in theaters, and all the new Atmos theaters all have individual direct radiating speakers now.

This has me thinking. Array of surrounds, is saying that there were far more than one for each side. A new Atmos theater will then likely have far more than 7 + 4 speakers in their mix. So for example where in your home you have 1 surround left speaker at home, the theater has 5-8? depending on the size of the room. That will give the Atmos the ability to radiate the pinpoint sound over multiple times more speakers than you will ever have. At best you have 3 speakers if you send some of that sound mixed through your front left and rear left surround speakers.

Effectively all that Atmos has done is give far more channels bumping from the 4 (pro-logic), 5 (DD), 7 (DD-HD) now to as many as you have.

But for the home user that can't put in 20+ speakers like they have in an actual theater, are you going similar sound from the 5 speakers or 7 speakers that are directional, like you would with the 20+

Ulimately my QS8's will be taken down and replaced with direct firing. I think right now given I have a second row and only 5.2.4 they are fine, but once I go 7.2.4 I want all my surrounds to be direct firing. Probably M3 on walls given my size room. But I have only heard M2 on walls.

If you only have one row of seating and want atmos. Go direct firing speakers. Forget everything else. Those days are over....assuming of course Atmos and DTS's version take off.

Yup.

Oh, as for M3s, I have the on wall version that went in place of my QS8. The M3 sounds really nice.

Looks like a perfect time to build a new QS speaker . Same design as a qs8 but add a woofer on the front. We can name it the qs10 .

I was watching a movie in my new room and was getting rather ticked off with the rest of the family as I could hear them just chatting away and it was rather distracting during the scene.

So I hit pause and yelled up to them "do you mind I'm watching the movie". The chatting had stopped, so I resumed to movie, only to have the chatting back again.

OK. Pause, and furious go upstairs, to find out they had left to go shopping and were not inside the house at all.

Then it dawned on me that the chatter stopped when I hit pause. Sat down and pressed play again to figure out it was the sound mix from the QS8s on my wall surrounds that just sounded too realistic to be part of the movie.

YEP. Tatoo that big letter i onto my forehead.

not to worry buddy, I think many of us have had something like that happen with those surrounds. I got up and answered the door then went to look out on the balcony during the same movie before I realized that it was the movie. those are the marks of great audio mixing and a great audio system reproducing it. if you didn't do that and if I didn't get up to go to those doors, that would mean either the mix wasn't done well or the system wasn't laid out and done properly.

I love my QS8's!