Well, I guess it's time to give my final conclusions; abeit they are not scientific etc. Some of you might recall the post where I discussed returning the Axioms after an AB comparison between the Aximo M60 and the Wharfedale Evo-30.

I have had the Evo system in my home for a few weeks now and I believe I have finalized my impressions. I will summarize below:

Mains:
I think they are similarly good. I still think the Evo's have better attack and better dispersion (they are less localized)than the M60's. The Evo's seem to be slightly rolled off on the top end compared to the M60's. Is that a good thing? I guess it depends upon preference. To me, I seem to prefer the slightly rolled off highs when it comes to music. However, I prefer the M60's when it comes to HT.

Center:
I experienced some difficulty with the VP150 regarding dialogue. Sound effects were great, but at times I had to strain to hear dialogue. I had to boost the center channel in the receiver setup to +2 and still at times it was difficult to hear dialogue. Using the same source material, I don't have this problem with the Evo center. The Evo center gets the nod.

Surrounds:
I prefer the QS8's and miss having them in my home. My friend who has also heard both systems in my home used the phrase "the Axiom surrounds seem more emphasized...louder..more pronounced". I agree. I am not sure what accounts for this...it's almost as if the QS8's were boosted in the receiver setup. That is the best way I can explain what I hear. Perhaps Evo surrounds also roll off sooner on the highs compared to the Axiom surrounds? Whatever the reason, I give a significant edge to the QS8's. To be honest, I would like to have a pair again when I can afford it. The QS8's are Axiom's 'darling'...no question about it.

Sidenotes:
The speakers definately have different placement characteristics. The Evo's are front ported and placing them closer to the wall (8") yields optimal bass results. Optimal results on the M60's were at 16" from the wall.

Thanks for the update.

Your comments on the mains raise some interesting questions. In the stereo world one of the reasons people like Axioms is that the imaging and localization is excellent, ie you CAN tell exactly where every instrument and every sound is located, no dispersion.

Not trying to pick on you, far from it -- I have heard a number of people prefer "less localized" sound from the mains so I'm trying to understand it. If you hadn't said "better dispersion" I would have interpreted what you said as meaning "the imaging is better on the wharfedales, ie it doesn't sound like the noise is coming from the speakers".

In hindsight, M50s might have been a better choice than M60s for you. It would be interesting if anyone on the board gets a chance to do an M50 to Evo comparison -- I bet they would be pretty close.

I think the deal with the QS8s is that your position in the room doesn't affect how clearly you hear them as much -- direct speakers sound loud and clear when you're near them but pretty much disappear as you move away, while with the QSs the sound doesn't vary as much as you move around.

It sounds like you're closing in on the perfect system, anyways. Just need to trade in those surrounds and give M50s a try

Nope, the M50s wouldn't have done it. The bit about locating all the instruments-I can do that. At least with a good recording.

"the imaging is better on the wharfedales, ie it doesn't sound like the noise is coming from the speakers".

Actually, that is exactly what I was attempting to convey.

Sorry, bad writing on my part. My suggestion about the 50s was related to a comment along the lines of preferring a slightly more rolled off highs (guessing that's actually upper midrange).

The way I wrote it sort of implied that the 50s comment was related to the previous sentence about imaging. Not my intention, O enforcer for the M50 posse