Axiom Home Page Forums General Discussion The Water Cooler M22 Tower

ajb,

fhw has it right.
The M40 was made prior to the M22, hence the 'purpose' of the M40 is the chicken before the egg kind of thing.
Both the M40 and M50 have been recommended to many people who have asked for the Axiom sound in a tower but a little less bright in the tweeter (hence no M60 or M80 would be desired).
They do fill a role quite nicely i would think.

As for the comparisons being made between the M3 and M40 tower, these are not apples to apples. Take note that you want to have an M22 in a tower version, but you want to keep the 'slim' tower yet the M40 (tower version of the M3 as you say) has larger box dimensions (width and length) over the M3.
If the M40 were the exact tower version of the M3 then, why would its dimensions be larger?
As in my previous post, a slim tower design tends to sound thin, for lack of a better word. If you have the chance to compare a Totem Acoustics speaker to the Axioms, you may hear what i have heard (or perhaps not). Of course the best test of keeping such a slim design would be to take an M40 speaker and pair it up against the M3 which had been modified ONLY by giving it more height to its dimensions.
My guess is that the sound from the M40 would be more full, more robust than the modified M3.
Hence, keeping the M22 configuration for a tower would be interesting, however i think the best sound would probably come from increasing the tower dimensions along with it.

You wanted opinions, that is mine.

Chesseroo, you bring up some good points and some history which I was unaware of, and I appreciate that.

To clarify things a bit, I wasn't advocating a tower with the same width of the M22, just a little slimmer than the current towers. I have always thought, maybe mistakenly, that the volume of the box was the critical issue on how you tune the sound for any given speaker (obviously based on the drivers used). I suppose there may be an optimized width to depth ratio (along with the volume) that Ian feels gives his speakers the characteristics he is looking for. Maybe a slightly narrower width and deeper depth causes problems of some kind. I was viewing it from a visual point of view. If you are using smaller drivers, why not make the cabinet a little narrower, which would look nice and not be quite as intrusive or imposing. It would be very interesting to hear some of Ian's thoughts on this issue.

I do enjoy, and learn from, all of the comments by everyone in this thread and all the others. Keep up the good work.

ajb,
If you haven't checked it out, take a look at the Totem Acoustic speakers that i mentioned earlier. Those speakers are virtually identical to your idea that you have with the M22s. A small footprint speaker but obviously not with Axioms drivers.

ajb, it is interesting that you mention width to depth ratio, and the effect it has on the sound. The older "Millenia" series had a far more aggressive taper front to back than the current line. During testing, I wonder if Ian had found some sonic benifits in reducing the taper, or whether it was simple asthetics. The old line just looked awkward.

Sorry, made a mistake - it was the old AX line that had the aggressive taper, NOT the "old" Millenia line.

Chesseroo,
I finally took a look at the Totem Acoustic speakers you mentioned. Some of those towers are quite thin. Even more so than the M22. Actually, I sort of got the idea after looking at some Paradigm Monitor 7's. They are a lot taller than I would propose for a M22 style tower and they use 6 1/2" woofers, but they are only 7 5/8" wide. That is just 1/8" more than the M22. Interesting, since they use bigger drivers. I really like the look of these. Actually, the Monitor 11's are the same width as the 7's. The current Axiom towers are almost 1 3/4 inches wider, which makes them look a bit fat in comparison. The Studio 60, which does sound better than the Monitor 7 and also has 6 1/2" woofers, is only 8 1/4" wide. Still an inch less than the Axioms. Other than the slimmer look, I don't know how this impacts the sound. As far as Axioms are concerned, my guess is that since they taper to a smaller width in the back, the front needs to be wider to get the volume of the box correct without making them taller than Ian wants. Buts that's just a wild guess.

Some of those Totem speakers are ridiculously thin.
The sound is nice and not unexpected from good drivers but there is simply no 'fullness' of sound in their smaller series. I would say that even the M22 had more oomph than that little Arrow speaker. The larger Wind model was certainly alot more bassy and heavy all around. I almost equated it to a Paradigm speaker but it was no where near as boomy and the sound was much cleaner, smoother.
Still, the little Totems can serve a purpose not unlike your M22 tower idea.

Although the tower volumes will make a huge difference in the type of sound that is emitted, so will the type of materials used to construct the tower as well as thickness, density (hence weight), internal bracing, etc.
The basis for my thought on the M22 tower (potentially being boxy and thin sounding) comes from the fact that i've seen and heard the Totem speakers, and that i know they are made out of similar materials and thicknesses as the Axioms (although very different drivers). I was making a relative comparison between the M22 as a tower and the Totem Arrow which is how i described the idea in my original post.

I'm sure if Axiom were to make them, they would adjust for any boxyness in sound, maybe even make them more tapered at the back eh?

Well, this has really turned into quite an interesting post, and all just from not wanting to use a speaker stand. Thanks to everyone who participated.

Now it would be really cool if Ian were to pop in with his thoughts.

Chesseroo,
I would like to ask you an off topic question. It sounds like you have listened to Paradigm speakers. Have you done any direct comparisons to the Axioms. If so, which speakers did you compare and how would you characterize the differences in sound.

I have not heard any Axioms yet, but I have compared the Monitor 7's and Studio 20's to the new Wharfedale Evo 30 and 40. The Wharfedales have more detail than the Studio's and you can't even hear the same detail in the Monitor's. The Wharfedales seem to have a more pristine sound, for lack of a better word. I am very curious to know if the Axioms also have more detail than either of the Paradigms lines. It is obviously very hard to compare without you hearing the Wharfedales, but I was hoping you could give me some insight into the Axioms.

ajb,
First off, here is a link to my first post on the comparison i did when i was looking for speakers.
post of Axiom vs. Angstrom audio

That should help to give you an idea of my very first impressions when i heard Axiom speakers, about a day after i received them. My opinion now hasn't changed much but first impressions are always the most interesting.

Second, i have listened to Paradigm Reference speakers in a local audio shop. In fact, this was the same day, same room and same shop that i first heard those Totem speakers as well.
Note that i did not listen to these speakers at home on my own system. I also do not remember offhand what solid state amps were used to drive the speakers when i 'auditioned' them but i did bring along my own cd of music so i was familiar with the tunes.
With all that in mind, my general thoughts on the Paradigm Reference speakers went something like this:
Negatives
far more boomy in the bass compared to my Axioms, bass was no where near as tight
the midrange was more pronounced i would say
the high end was not nearly as bright or clear as the Axioms
more pricey

Positives
equivalent finish
more laid back highs (not as forward/bright as Axiom)

I cannot say which is a better speaker. I have a friend who likes the mainstream dance beat kind of music and for him, i recommended he look at Paradigm and Energy speakers for his home system (he ended up buying the Energy).
For myself, i like the extra clarity and tight bass. I've always been one to turn up the treble knob in the car, searching for better clarity. For home theatre the Axioms are excellent, but for a 50% portion of my music, they are bright. Sometimes the extra detail overrides the brightness but my more mainstream music just suffers.
My wife notices this a fair bit and again, loves them for home theatre but would prefer something less bright for music. I have since put in the resistor though and it has worked out a bit better. The volume of the highs has been dulled a bit and my wife likes it better.
At some point the Axioms will be powering my home theatre anyway and i knew this. They are still by far an awesome choice, price for performance for either music or HT but be warned, they WILL show you the obvious flaws in bad or hot recordings.

In case you want to see some reviews on other Axiom speakers, check out these lengthy blurbs from
randyman
and
fhw
and
sonicfox

Sorry if i missed anyone.

Hey Semi, you gonna post a review someday or what eh?
Or are you still waiting for the speakers to arrive? According to your profile, you are still waiting.