Anyone using their m2's for surrounds ?
Here is a review with a guy that used M2 surrounds.
http://www.hometheatersound.com/equipment/axiom_m22v2_m2v2_vp150v2_ep500v2.htm"I’d originally planned to use M3 v2s for the surround channels, but Axiom’s Alan Lofft told me the M2 v2 would be a better choice because it is, technically, the M22 v2 with one fewer midrange driver. I’m glad I took his advice -- the result was an absolutely seamless soundstage. Ambient cues moved unimpeded from speaker to speaker, with no dropouts."
I should add that I setup my father-in law's theatre with M2 surrounds in a pretty big space (5000+ cubic ft.) and they performed very well after calibration.
Exactly what I was looking for, thanks for the quick response.
Terry
Thanks Terry for starting this interesting thread. QS8s were on the top of my list for surrounds but according to that review Axiom’s QS8s may be a problem if the rear speakers are placed within a foot of the rear wall. So if space from the wall is an issue, do other experts here recommend using M2s for surrounds rather than QS8s? Since I'm still reviewing my options I'd appreciate all your thoughts regarding wall space and using QS8s or not.
Could you not mount the surrounds on the rear wall? I am guessing this is a 5.1 system.
FWIW, QS8's are still the best regardless of position for surrounds, IMO. I think it would depend on whether or not you like your surrounds to melt away or be noticed. The directional M2s allow a person to pinpoint the sound much easier, yet both will do their jobs extremely well. I don't believe you could go wrong either way.
Yes you can use m2's, but they will not give you a true "surround" experience as intended by the recording engineers. Only the quadpolar Qs4's or 8's will envelope you in the true experience by design.
I used M2s as surrounds and was really happy with them. I ended up getting QS8s out of curiousity. The QS8s seemed to have fewer "gaps" when sounds were panning around the back or middle of the listening area, and somehow made the room feel noticeably bigger than the M2s (or any other conventional speaker I tried).
If you have a big room where the M2s can be mounted a bit further away I *think* that would reduce the difference between M2s and QSes. In a small room where the surrounds are right near your head the QSes make a big difference.
Thanks for your thoughts and info on surrounds. Besides the differences from the specs on the QS4s & QS8s, any recommended guidelines on when it's best to use the 8s vs the 4s?
The 8s fit the bill as long as you can afford them otherwise use 4s. The 8s have the ability to play louder for larger rooms and slightly deeper other than that not much difference.
Phil, the QSs don't have any problem when positioned near the back wall; in fact when the listeners are sitting very close to the back wall the suggested positions are either on the side walls just a few inches from the back wall or on the back wall just a few inches from the side walls. That particular reviewer at least believed, possibly incorrectly, that some aspect of his room arrangement might affect the QSs, but certainly there's no such problem in most cases.