Did I make a mistake buying four Axiom M3tis? (1 Viewer)

[Thomas Molnar]

Should I have gotten qs4s in the rear instead? I did get the vp150 center though. My sofa is sitting right up against the rear wall. I have a solid wall to the west and open space to the right.

Tom

 

[John Garcia]

If your sofa is up against the wall, bi/dipoles would not have worked, since part of their fuctionality is to bounce sound off the walls behind you. They would need to be mounted inline with the listener allowing sound to play forward and behind, not directly "at" the listener, for a diffused effect.

I have an opening on the right rear of my room also, so I cannot easily mount bi/dipoles either. I have my speakers on stands, at ear level (the same level as my mains) but they are a few feet behind me.

You will probably need to mount the M3s a few feet above you, on the rear wall pointed forward and/or slightly inward (play with angles for best effect).

You made the right choice, unless you were planning on moving your couch.

 

[Steve WC]

Copy from post on rear speakers at Axiom website:

Hi jkohn and all,

Just a few thoughts and facts here: The final sound mix for a Dolby Digital or Dolby Surround movie is done in a mixing theater--an almost full-size movie theater with a big screen, lines of surround speakers down each side wall (plus a couple at the rear) and a big mixing console smack in the middle of the theater. I've been present for a final mix in the Alfred Hitchcock theater in L.A. at Universal. The point is that the movie sound is mixed for envelopment, as well as for directional effects. Like you say, direct radiators work well in big domestic rooms and in movie theaters, but in smaller rooms and typical living rooms, multipolar radiators are usually more effective at creating envelopment, are less fussy to position to achieve the latter effects, and, in my experience, give up nothing in terms of precise directional cues when needed.

Certainly direct radiators are the only choice for home theater main speakers, but bipolars have their place for stereo music reproduction. The stereo illusion is intrinsically flawed because in stereo music reproduction, the direct sounds AND the ambient sounds are thrown at you from the front, which is not the way it happens in real life. That's why bipolars can be highly effective (in stereo) for recreating a more realistic mix of direct and ambient information, albeit at the expense of precise imaging.

What I have discovered using multipolar radiators at the sides for DVD-A and Dolby Digital/dts music is that the "sweet spot" is remarkably generous compared to using direct radiators as surrounds. In demos of DVD-A and SACD, as well as other experiments in which I participated using full-range direct radiating speakers, the sweet spot was incredibly critical. Moving the listening chair even a foot or so made the illusion collapse to the speaker nearest the listening position.

I'd be interested to hear about others' experience with multichannel music and bipole/dipole/quadpole surrounds vs. direct radiating surrounds.

Regards,



Alan Lofft
Axiom Resident Expert

And:

Quadpolar surrounds are easier to place than direct-radiating surrounds, especially when different distances and heights are involved. They work best elevated 1 to 5 feet above ear level for seated listeners, to the sides of the listening areas, either slightly forward or to the rear.

 

[Mikey B]

While I do not have experience with direct radiating speakers being mounted on a wall where the couch is sitting up against, I do have experience with the QS4 Quad-poles being mounted in this same scenario. I have to disagree with John Garcia's recommendation (sorry John, I usually read and agree with your recommendations). In the case where the main seating is smack up against the rear wall, there is no ideal position for the rear speakers (of any type). BUT, the QS4's work very very well sitting about 4 feet above ear height on the back wall. In fact, in the system I'm talking about, they work better than the Paradigm dipoles I use mounted to the side in my own system. I like hearing all that is available in the rear channels, and more of the surround information is delivered in the Axiom/Marantz SR6200 system than what is delivered in my own Paradigm/Denon AVR3300 system.

I would suspect though, that the 3ti's will also work well enough. Given a choice, however....I would go with the QS4's.

 

[Heath_R]

Mount the M3's three feet over your head on the back wall facing each other.

 

[Marc H]

Hi Tom,
I just replied to your email this morning. Sorry for the delay - just back from fishing.
I personally prefer the use of identical speakers for front and rear. That can bring out a precision to the surround imaging that can only happen when there's perfect timbre and performance matching between front and rear.
The QS series speaker are very easy to place though and a breeze to wall mount. They do have a convincing enveloping effect too.
Also, the QS4Se use the titanium hybrid tweeter as opposed to the pure titanium tweeter that is used in the M3TiSe and the match is close enough for most folks for movies but it's a matter of opinion what the match is like for multi channel music.
In your situation, not having one side wall and having the couch right up against the back wall, I'm glad you decided on the M3TiSe for front and rear.
You should be receiving the speakers today; please write and let me know your thoughts.