Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Pairing 170's/340c with Axiom QS4 surrounds?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    SouthWest of Cleveland
    Posts
    1,550

    Default

    Do you mean "Axiom" QS4's? If those are what you meant, not sure how Axioms match sonically w/Ascends. I think the issue of direct radiating vs. dipole surrounds has been discussed somewhere on this forum. With discrete digital surrounds, the need for dipoles is not a requirement anymore, and may negatively affect the intended sound effects (no dipoles are used in actual movie theaters).

    Ed

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    413

    Default

    i had the axiom setup + QS8. i didn't like the way dipole surrounds operated in a 5.1 setup. especially in my room.

    if you are going to 'mismatch' any speaker in a system, let it be the surrounds.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Birmingham, Alabama
    Posts
    462

    Default

    I've read good reviews of the QS series, but will concur with the above posts on the monopole vs. dipole issue, especially with modern movie tracks. I believe the old THX specs recommended dipoles, but monos do it for me. Add multi-channel music into the mix, and dipoles wouldn't work for me at all, but as usual.....YMMV.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    27

    Default

    Oops, fixed axiom above. Thanks for the advice guys.

    Ok, my next "small size" option is to use 200's instead of 170's for the surrounds.

    What, exactly, do I give up with the smaller speaker?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Charter Oak, Iowa
    Posts
    579

    Default

    I have not heard the 200's but considering that they are going to do surround duty I REALLY doubt that you are going to give up anything at all. The only thing that might come into play is if you are considering hi-rez multi channel use then the 170's or 340's become more important. Also, if this is the case, then I would think that dipoles would not be desirable. I believe Curtis has said that Dr. Hsu (Hsu subwoofer's) prefers the 200's over the 170's.

    Randy

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    27

    Default

    <blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Arial, Verdana, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Lou-the-dog&lt;BR&gt;
    I believe Curtis has said that Dr. Hsu (Hsu subwoofer's) prefers the 200's over the 170's.
    <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
    Randy, good thoughts, thanks. Can someone confirm the Dr. Hsu quote?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Manhattan Beach, California
    Posts
    6,243

    Default

    With me.....he said it to me when I was demoing the Ascends at his offices 1.5 years ago. He likes the more forward sound of the 200's. You might be able to just call him and ask.

    -curtis

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    27

    Default

    Curtis,

    Thanks! This makes me wonder if the much-better-WAF-for-the-space-intended 200's would be OK all the way around. What are your thoughts regarding using 200's vs 170's in a 15' square listening area? (Room is 15x20.)

    -Allen

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Manhattan Beach, California
    Posts
    6,243

    Default

    I'd still take the 170's.

    -curtis

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •