QS8's (and cast) just keep on amazing

I am not going to bore you with my lengthy opinions but was impressed to share my thoughts. I have had my axiom system for about 3 weeks now and it just keeps surprising me. It consists of M60's, VP150, (2) QS8's, and (2) QS4's. All are being driven by a Denon 3805 until I add a Marantz MM9000 in the next couple weeks. Bass duties are handled by a PB2+. The funny thing is what is impressing me the most isn't the flat out night and day difference between the Axioms and my old setup but the subtle details instead. Of course when I first got them hooked up and calibrated I scoured my collection to find all of the action packed titles to put in, which included LOTR, Terminator, Matrix, Gladiator, etc, etc. While all of these movies sounded great they just didn't blow me away. Words like increased sound stage and better FR came to mind, but nothing that just slapped me in the face. The part that blew me away was when I had in For love of the game. This is definitely not an action flick so I was not expecting anything out of the ordinary. This is where I couldn't have been more wrong. For a medium dollar budget movie the surround use is phenomenal. Closing your eyes you'd swear you were on the pitching mound. You could hear the croud buzz surrounding you and at the same time distinct voices and boos were anchored in mid air. The same goes for the M60's. The minor details were starting to be revealed. The subway train that was barely audible could be heard in the distance. And all of this was being picked up at well below reference. Master and Commander (even though I thought the movie SUCKED) was awesome to watch (or should I say hear). I had some friends over and one of them actually got up and went to the door because he swore someone was knocking. LOL. I love the whole system but I would have to say the shining stars in the lineup are the QS8's. They really bring the life to the movie. Now if only they would come out with 7.1 discrete I would be set.

OK, I'll be the first to ask.......What sucked about "Master and Commander"? It wasn't the same story as in the book but I'm really curious as to what you're criticising. The wife is French and she liked it........

HMMMMMM, let's see here. Could it be the fact that they made a 3 hour movie out of a script that they could have been finished in about 15 minutes. Don't get me wrong it was a great picture and the cannon fight at the beginning was awesome but other than that it just seemed to drag, and drag, and drag, and....... well you get the point. Maybe if I had gone into the movie knowing that there would be 2 action scenes and the rest would be a long drawn out soap opera than I would have a different opinion about it. It was kind of like Troy, great movie but just not enough going on. Different strokes for different folks.

I've heard LOT's of people say they hated that movie, but for some reason I'm still looking forward to seeing it.

As far as the Axioms go, I've had a similar experience with thinking something on the soundtrack was real. I kept thinking I was hearing a dog bark outside. Finally it was driving me crazy and paused my dvd is gave a listen. Nothing. Started the player back up and that damn dog came back! LOL...it was the darn DVD. I SWEAR it sounded like it was coming from outside.

I liked Master and Commander, but everybody here dissed it. My wife and the girls on my softball team didn't care for it much either.

Pretty suspenseful flick, I thought.

Troy didn't have enough going on? Wow...ok.

Here's a list of particular favorites of mine that you should probably avoid...

Gandhi
Patton
Raging Bull
Apocolypse Now
The Shining

Yeah, I tend to like loooong drawn out movies.

i can see it both ways.. i watched it tuesday night(awesome surrounds). it did go a long way to just point out the fact that the crewmen have loyalty to the captain, and the captain was trying to find his own niche in the wider scope of 'greatest captains ever'. i liked the characters of the grumpy cook, and the young boy turning into a man, but alas, it did seem to drag on a bit. the gratitious scenes of the officers, sitting around, telling stories and singing sailor songs did get old.

my wife, being a scientist, did enjoy the whole gallapagos islands aspect to the movie. she most enjoyed the doctor fellow, and his cerebral way of thinking.

overall, not a great movie, but not bad. a little drawn out, but aint that the case with all epic adventure movies these days?

bigjohn

spiff,
Are you a fan of Stanley Kubrick?
I think the only movie of his that i can watch is 2001: Space Odyssey.

Maybe I should rephrase that. I don't like long drawn out movies when they have been hyped to be action packed edge of the seat blockbusters. It's kind of along the same lines as the M60 phenomena. People hype them so much that when others buy them on their recommendation they are almost disappointed. It's not that they are bad speakers by any means (I love mine) but people put them on this pedestal that makes people believe if you buy them you will be in audiophile bliss. I am being a little dramatic but you get my point. M&C was hyped as being the best picture of the year, blah, blah, blah and I was expecting more from it. And no, I probably wouldn't watch any of those movies you recommended. LOL.

Wow, I've already gotten so much out of this thread. I have grown from hobbiest to enthusiast during it's duration. LOL.

see there, we are making you a better person by the minute..er, by the post at least.

bigjohn

fastlane, you said you were going to add the Marantz. I am going to purchase the Denon 3805. Isn't the Denon sufficient to run the HT?

Before I go any further, whether you liked Master and Commander, or didn't, I mean no insult to your tastes or preferences. This is not a question of whether the movie is "good," or "bad," but rather a question of "I liked it," or "I didn't like it," and why. You do NOT have to be wrong for me to be right, and vice versa.

I eagerly anticipated this movie. I love this genre, and grew up reading pirate, and sea stories (Kidnapped, Robinson Crusoe, Horatio Hornblower, etc.) I also enjoy comparing a movie to the book (usually, but not always, the movie comes off second best because of the inherent differences in the media). So, I borrowed the book from the library a few weeks before the release of the DVD. As the release date neared, I kept thinking "Boy, I hope the movie moves along better than the book, I can't slog my way through this thing." I never did finish the book, and that is a VERY rare thing, for me.

I preferred the movie to the book (at least I didn't have to turn the pages). I found it visually, and aurally a real treat, and the movie is worth seeing if for no other reason than that (and I WILL see it again BECAUSE of that). Plot-wise, I was less bored by it than the book, but only marginally. Like the book, it just didn't hold me. I'm an old guy. I was weaned on plot driven movies. If the plot, and dialog don't measure up, even though the technical aspects of the movie sparkle, I'm not going to care for it.

I was disappointed by this movie. How large a part my expectations played in that disappointment is difficult to assess. It's so easy to over hype oneself into a disappointment. If you enjoyed the movie, you were NOT wrong in doing so. I envy you because you had a better experience than I did. I'd be grateful if you wouldn't come back with the "You were bored by this? Boy, you must've been bored by 'this,' and 'that' movie" comments, because I was no more wrong with my reactions than you were with yours. It's all a matter of taste.

My QS8s, however, DID make this movie sing.

The Denon is an unbelievable receiver. It is a huge improvement over my Sony 2ES receiver that it replaced. I believe this has more to do with the upgradeitis bug than anything. I was originally going to go with seperates using my 2ES for the pre pro but I really wanted to go 7.1 and the Sony didn't give me that option. I also really liked the idea of PLIIX on the 3805. Now I know everyone has their own opinion but since running 7.1 I would never go back to 6.1. I was running a direct radiating speaker directly behind the listening position (my couch is about 3' from the rear wall) and it was too disctracting. Some people advocate the use of direct firing for the rear surround but in my experience this is better used in larger rooms where you are quite a ways from the rear surrounds where the sound has a little time to spread out. I like the diffused sound of the QS series when placed close to the listening position. Running this setup I get a little more natural sounding rear sound the envelopes the listener no matter if you are in the sweet spot or not. Sorry to get off topic, back to the original question. The 3805 even though rated at 120X7, I bet is lucky to be putting out 65 per channel when all are driven. During demanding passages in action scenes I truly believe seperates will greatly improve the sound. Maybe someone who has seperates now can comment on the before after but I have heard it summed up like, "the sound is fuller, even at lower listening levels", "the bass is tighter", "the high's are crisper", etc. If you were scraping by to afford a HT system the Denon would do everything you ever needed it to but if you have a few extra bucks to spend I don't think you would regret going to a seperate amp to power everything. At least that's how I am justifying it. LOL

Thanks. I have an old receiver (Kenwood 8010). Could it be used to accomplish the same thing?

I am not familiar with that particular receiver. As long as it has preouts it will work.

Actually I found the critics of M&C to have some good points. These books were tremendously popular but I'd hazard a guess as to where (England?). The books are slow going but detailed. They do not have dramatic finishes of grand resolution. I got a lot out of the film because I liked the detail of life on the sea where you have a good contrast between isolation and cooperation. IOW I got sucked into the movie because I wanted to be and that's exactly how we end up liking or disliking movies. I can easily understand if someone was disappointed in the action. It was good but there was not a lot by today's standards. Action, by today's standards is a greater portion of film, even the more dramatic films.

Peter Weir was the director so you can see from this list if he's a possible favorite or not.

Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World (2003)

Truman Show, The (1998)

Fearless (1993)

Green Card (1990)
... aka Green Card (1990) (France)

Dead Poets Society (1989)

Mosquito Coast, The (1986)

Witness (1985)

Year of Living Dangerously, The (1982)

Gallipoli (1981)

Plumber, The (1979) (TV)

Last Wave, The (1977)

"Luke's Kingdom" (1976) (mini) TV Series

Picnic at Hanging Rock (1975)

Cars That Ate Paris, The (1974)
... aka Cars (1974)
... aka Cars That Eat People (1974) (USA)

Homesdale (1971)

Three to Go (1971)

In reply to:
Master and Commander (even though I thought the movie SUCKED) was awesome to watch

I agree, but I had a booger of a time with the British accents! I'm not the only one, I was at a party the other night where we got to talking about the movie and a LOT of people mentioned that they also had problems understanding the dialog because of the accents.

Oy! Avoid films made/set in scotland. Now there is an accent that I find hard to follow! I rented a movie recommended to me by netflix called Orphans (dark comedy). They had accents so thick subtitles on turned on by default.
They were speaking English and I needed subtitles.

jr

Personally, I enjoy the accents. It takes awhile, but you catch on...

Oops. I should have included the following:

If you have trouble with English accents, avoid ....

I'm with you K. I like various accents. Though I tend to mis-hear things anyway "Taco fairy did what in with your spleen?" Makes my life waaay more entertaining.

jr

In reply to:
Yeah, I tend to like loooong drawn out movies.

Don't forget the best long movie of all time..."Lawrence of Arabia" One of the most beautifully photographed movies ever.

Mark

IMO, Kubrick was a genius. "Dr. Strangelove", "A Clockwork Orange", "2001", and "Full Metal Jacket" all belong in the pantheon of great films. I can live without "Barry Lyndon", however.

Mark

In reply to:
Kubrick was a genius

I agree, but I haven't purchased many of the DVD's from his movies because most seem to be in 4:3 mode for some reason!

- Bill

I have to live in London this summer, hopefully I will be able to understand someone while I am there.

Just kidding, the accents are not hard to understand, come on guys!

In reply to:
the accents are not hard to understand

Just like the U.S., there are a lot of different accents in the British Isles. I have a lot of difficulty with the Cockney accent, which seemed to be about 75% of the dialog in "Master and Commander". I guess I just don't have an international ear!

Bill

I forgot about Full Metal Jacket. That was a good movie.
Clockwork Orange was just wacked.

Tim Burton is another of my least favourite director/producers.

I love John Woo's work though.

In reply to:
I love John Woo's work though

really?? i have seen just a few too many stupid plot twists and gratitious 'blow everything up' scenes from him. the whole artsy-farsty camera angle stuff just gets old, especially after you see it over and over and over again. to me, he makes one kind of movie.. but, if you like that kind of movie, then he is right up your alley.. personally, i dont care for his vision.

other directors i think are highly over-rated.. jerry bruckheimer, michael bay, richard donner, and renny harlin. if you have seen one, you have seen them all!!

bigjohn

What about that guy that did "Mulholland Drive" and "Lost Highway"? What's his name? His movies are pretty whacked (though "Mulholland Drive" was smokin'!!!!).

David Lynch. And he is wacked.

Tim Burton is another one of my faves! "Big Fish" really shows his maturation as a filmmaker...a touching father/son bonding movie with the typical Burtonesque visuals. "Ed Wood", "Edward Scissorhands", "Sleepy Hollow", and "Beetlejuice" are faves of mine. Hell, I even liked "Mars Attacks!"..Bit of a miss with "Planet of the Apes", though.

Mark

Tim Burton is cool. His movies definitely have a distinctive flair. PLanet of the Apes fell short because of Mark Wahlberg, I believe. He's not campy enough to play the role that he did (he took it too seriously).

But the story was good, and the costumes were excellent. Tim Roth was unrecognizable, yet surprisingly emotive through all of that rubber...

Batman and Batman Returns

Nuff said.

ok, I need to chime in now...Burton, Kubrick, and Lynch are fantastic...I personally (with the exception of 007 flicks, and the last one I was not the largest fan of to say the least) get very tired of cookie-cutter movies pretty fast. Those three guys have never made a cookie-cutter movie in their lives, and show no indication that they ever will.