I have the m22 ti's and a subwoofer for listening to music in stereo. I'm thinking about getting a surround amp and some rear speakers and a center speaker. Is there something about the Axiom rear speakers that makes them only for rear? Why wouldn't I get another set of m22 ti's for the rear or is that ridiculous?
well, normally for the surrounds, you want a speaker that has enveloping capabilities. in other words, it can spread and dispurse the sound, which adds to the feel of the desired surround effect in movies. but, you can use the direct, or front firing speakers, and be just as happy. its really a matter of personal preference.
dependong on the size of the room, if you have the cash, go with either one of the QS series surrounds.. or, go with the M2 or M3 as well.. to me, having the M22 as a surround seems like overkill, but once again, it depends on your preference. whatfurrer(who is a regular in the forum) has M22's as his rear speakers, and loves them.
there is no right or wrong, only what YOU prefer.
bigjohn
Are your plans for surround sound more for movies or for SACD and DVD-A music discs?
If the idea is movies, I suggest getting the QS series surrounds. 4's for a smaller room, 8's for a larger room.
If your goal is 5.1 music, many people prefer matching direct radiating speakers...in your case, M22's.
Good luck and have fun!
John and Spiff have given good advice. I'll confuse the issue further by saying that you won't be suffering if you get the 22s and use them as surrounds for watching movies, nor will you suffer using QS series surround speakers when listening to SACD and DVD-A.
I'm a huge fan of the QS series speakers, and am using QS8s for my surrounds. I'm soon going to move into the world of SACD and DVD-A, and have no trepidations, at all, about using the QS8s as surrounds when listening to Hi Rez music.
I suspect that using direct radiating speakers, like M22s, in this role would be a little better. But, I seriously doubt that the QS8s will be disappointing.
Likewise, the 22s as surrounds would not, in any way, be considered bad when used as surrounds for movies. But, the QS series speakers will do a better job.
My rather long-winded reply can best be summed up by saying that neither choice will be a bad one. But, as Spiff said, unless you intend to do a LOT of listening to SACD or DVD-A, I'd go with the QS series surrounds.
I would just add that As I listen to music with my QS8's and I am moving around in the room, the sound does not really get altered much. It is strong in any corner of the room. I believe a direct radiating speaker wouldn't give the same effect. Hope this helps
I currently use the M22's as surrounds as I am in a rent house and they work fabulously. That said, I am in the process of building a house and when it is complete, I will use QS8's in our great room. The M22's will then be relegated to the gameroom upstairs for my son and his cronies. But before I hang everything, I plan on doing some comparative tests to try to discern the effects of both.
Short of it is, you will be amazed by either...
There. I muddied the water just fine, right?
WhatFurrer
I am presently using M-60s front, and QS-8s as rear sourronds. In the new room witch will be much bigger, 22x23x20 vauled cielings, I will go 7.1 move the QS-8's to the sides, the m-22s (that are in another room now) to the rears and the 60s up front, with (2) SVS 20-39 PC Plus's. I listen to alot of SACD/5.1 CD music, so I have opted for the better direct sound of the 22's, and the the 8s handle the H.T. end of things. The QS-8's are more musical than you might think though. I'll let you know my results. P.S. hey ol timer Jack (AJAX) have you heard Diana Krall's new SACD "the women inside the house" that will make your Axiom's just purr like you can't imagine. Great sound, I ran it in 5.1 with the 22s in the rear, God I want the bigger (deeper) room to let these speakers brethe, Oh well, patience!!!
In reply to:
have you heard Diana Krall's new SACD "the women inside the house"
She's getting to the point where she just keeps repeating the same themes over and over. I haven't heard this new CD you're writing about, but I just listened to
"The Girl In The Other Room" last night.
The Girl In The Other Room, the women inside the house, shheeeesh. Can't she ever wite about Elvis for a change?
{Running and Ducking from the inevitable snowball flying at my head}
In reply to:
P.S. hey ol timer Jack (AJAX) have you heard Diana Krall's new SACD "the women inside the house" that will make your Axiom's just purr like you can't imagine.
Haven't heard it yet, but I'll be getting it soon, I suspect. Thanks for remembering that, currently, she's my favorite.
AS for YOU, Johnson,
i AM THE dumb a$$, It is "the girl in the otehr room" I have done 8 hours of Christmas shopping today, My brain is mush, and now I feel like an idiot, Jack but the proper title, and don't listen to me today!!
LOL!! "The Girl in the Other Room"/"The Women Inside the House"
That is TOO funny!!
I am still laughing, sorry Diana, oh, thats so damm stupid, it's funny. I need a beer!! Jack BUY not "but" the album, I am otta here!!
Sounds like theme songs from "The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas".
This entire forum is crazy today. Sounds like we've all been into the Christmas egg nog early.
thats not ridiculous. It all depends on what type of sound you prefer. Believe it or not, DD 5.1 was actually designed to be used with normal speakers. Like the m22s or m3 for example. The qs8s are more enveloping but (im hoping to avoid flaming here) not as precise as m3s would be. Ie: when a bullet goes off in the back of the movie you would hear specifically where it travels with a normal set of bookies, whereas if you use a QS8 it may not be as easy to tell which direction it is coming from.
Hi freesey and all,
Correction: Dolby Digital 5.1 (AC-3 in its original pro version) was designed to be run with direct-radiating surround speakers in cinemas and movie auditoriums. In that environment, rows of surround speakers on each side wall function perfectly because audience members are farther away from the speakers and the surround content (sound travels at about 1 foot per millisecond) bounces around the auditorium and creates the desired sense of envelopment.
The reason that THX advocated dipole type surrounds was to mimic the sense of envelopment you would experience in a large cinema but in a living room or small studio. In small studios or your own living room, the surround speakers are usually quite close to the listener. If digital delay were not applied to the surround signals, your hearing would default to the first sounds to arrive at your ears (from the surrounds). Typically there is about 20 to 30 milliseconds of delay operating in the surround channels in a domestic Dolby Digital home setup. The dipole surround increases the sense of envelopment, however dipole designs have some annoying placement idiosyncrasies.
So Axiom came up with a different approach. In its QS8 and QS4 surround speakers, Axiom uses a "quadpolar" design that uses four drivers, all in phase, radiating in four different directions. This effectively simulates the envelopment heard in a big cinema and does without sacrificing directional cues. Some other manufacturers have bipolar surrounds; and a few even have surround speakers with switchable patterns.
I prefer using QS8 or multipolar surrounds for SACD and DVD-Audio because of the more generous listening area if you aren't sitting in the sweet spot, which is difficult to duplicate in most living rooms. Moreover, without digital delay available in the rear channels, the image will collapse if you move out of the sweet spot for DVD-A and SACD. That doesn't happen if you use QS8s as the surround or rear channels for DVD-A or SACD.
Regards,